ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

SCOTLAND

The Secretary of State was asked—

Whisky Industry

Anne McGuire: What discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the employment interests of workers in the whisky industry in Scotland.

Alistair Carmichael: I have regular discussions with the Chancellor about a wide range of issues, and I can assure the hon. Lady that the whisky industry in Scotland and its employees are a key priority. My Department has long-standing contact with the Scotch Whisky Association, which aids our understanding of the industry.

Anne McGuire: Scotch whisky is exported to about 200 countries, and the industry directly employs 10,000 people in Scotland. According to a recent White Paper from the Scottish Government, there will be about 90 Scotch whisky embassies if the Scottish Government have their way after independence. Does the Secretary of State agree that trade agreements brokered by a strong and extensive United Kingdom diplomatic and international trade infrastructure are integral to the success of Scotch whisky exports? I—

Mr Speaker: Order. I am sorry to be discourteous, but the question is too long.

Alistair Carmichael: The right hon. Lady is absolutely right. Given that 90% of the product of the Scotch whisky industry is for the export market, it is of supreme importance for Scotland to have the best possible access to that market, and we have that facility through the network of some 270 embassies throughout the world and through United Kingdom Trade & Investment. That is what matters, and that is why the Scotch whisky industry makes such good use of it.

Alan Reid: The Scotch whisky industry provides many jobs in my constituency, but I feel that it is very unfair that whisky is taxed at a higher rate per unit of alcohol than beers and wines. Will the Government look again at alcohol taxation with a view to creating a level playing field?

Alistair Carmichael: I may be wrong, and if I am I apologise, but I do not think my hon. Friend is right about the relative taxation of whisky and other alcoholic drinks. [Interruption.] I have now been informed that beer duty is 37% and whisky duty is 42%, but in any event it is wrong to play off one part of Scotland’s highly successful food and drinks industry against another. I am sure that the Chancellor will continue to listen to representations from the Scotch whisky industry, which my hon. Friend and I have made jointly over the years.

Brian H Donohoe: I declare an interest, as secretary of the all-party parliamentary scotch whisky and spirits group. Nearly every week the group receives representations about the whole question of the duty escalator and the unfair treatment of the spirits industry in relation to the beer industry. The Chancellor gave so much to the beer industry in his most recent Budget. What representations has the Secretary of State made to the Chancellor with the aim of overcoming the problem?

Alistair Carmichael: I will continue to make representations on behalf of the whole food and drink industry in Scotland, in which the hon. Gentleman and his all-party group play an important part. I have joined the hon. Gentleman on many occasions over the years as part of such delegations, and I will continue to give him as much support as I can.

Angus Robertson: Does the Secretary of State not accept that 80% of the price of a bottle of Scotch whisky is duty, which is paid to the United Kingdom Treasury? Duty discrimination by the UK Government is widening the gap between the price of whisky and the price of other beverages. How does that help the industry and employees?

Alistair Carmichael: The point to which the hon. Gentleman should respond—although I suspect that he will not—is that the Scotch whisky industry does very well as part of the United Kingdom industry, taking full advantage of the string of embassies and UKTI offices that we have throughout the world, and his policy of independence puts that at risk.

Angus Robertson: In opposition, the right hon. Gentleman and I, along with others, lobbied the Treasury to end tax discrimination. In fact, the right hon. Gentleman himself tabled an amendment for that purpose, supported by Liberal Democrat Members and the Scottish National party. Since becoming Secretary of State for Scotland, he has taken the Tory shilling, he is letting the industry down, and he is supporting a discriminatory duty. When will he stand up and be Scotland’s man in the Cabinet, rather than the Tories’ man in Scotland?

Alistair Carmichael: I do hope that that sounded better when the hon. Gentleman rehearsed it in the mirror earlier this morning, because it sounded pretty poor just now. There is no escaping the fundamental truth that his policy would be the ruination of the Scotch whisky industry, for no good reason.

Low Pay

William Bain: What steps the Government are taking to tackle low pay in Scotland.

David Mundell: With your permission, Mr Speaker, before I answer that question, may I draw the House’s attention to the fact that Saturday 21 December will be the 25th anniversary of the Lockerbie bombing? That remains the single largest loss of life ever in the United Kingdom, with 270 people perishing on that fateful evening. I am sure that the thoughts and prayers of the whole House will be with the community and with those who lost friends and family on that day. Much of the focus over the past 25 years has been on the perpetrators, but the friends and families of the victims and the community of Lockerbie deserve our respect and admiration for the formidable way in which they have coped with 25 years of unprecedented global attention.
	The national minimum wage is one of Government’s key policies to support the low paid, and it is UK wide. On 1 October, the adult minimum wage increased to £6.31 per hour. We have also increased the income tax personal allowance to £10,000, taking 224,000 Scots out of income tax altogether and benefiting 2.2 million Scottish taxpayers.

William Bain: I am sure that the whole House will commend and agree with the Minister’s remarks about Lockerbie.
	In his subsequent answer, the right hon. Gentleman omitted to say that prices had risen more quickly than wages in 41 of the 42 months he has served as a Minister in this House, that low pay was on the rise in Scotland and that the value of the national minimum wage had declined in real terms under this Government. When are he and the Business Secretary going to do something concrete to deal with all that? Or is he just going to sit on his hands while the cost of living crisis in Scotland gets worse by the day?

David Mundell: The hon. Gentleman is simply wrong. The October 2013 adult minimum wage rate is around 27% higher in real terms compared with the consumer prices index and about 15% higher in real terms compared with the retail prices index than it was on its introduction in 1999.

Mark Menzies: Does the Minister agree that the best way to tackle low pay in Scotland is to get the economy growing and to create more job opportunities?

David Mundell: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, and I hope that Opposition Members will welcome today’s announcement that employment is up and unemployment is down in Scotland. We are not complacent, but we are on the right track.

Frank Roy: Low pay is a scourge that is now affecting thousands of families throughout Scotland. Would those families best be helped by giving them a decent living wage or by introducing a tax cut for millionaires?

David Mundell: The Government support the concept of the living wage, where employers can afford to pay it and where it is not introduced at the cost of jobs. It is something to be encouraged.

Stewart Hosie: The UK Government’s attitude to the living wage was encapsulated by the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) earlier this year when she said:
	“There is no recognised definition of a national living wage.”—[Official Report, 10 June 2013; Vol. 563, c. 211W.]
	She went on to explain that the Government had therefore made no assessment of its consequences, were it to be introduced. Should not the Government move quickly to introduce a living wage for their employees, wherever they might be based in the UK, rather than hiding behind the vacuous argument that it is too difficult to calculate, given that we know it will be £7.65 an hour in Scotland and £8.80 in London next year?

David Mundell: It is never a surprise to hear the Scottish National party mention London in the same breath as Scotland. As I said to the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Mr Roy), the Government believe that the living wage is a concept that should be supported, where employers can afford it and where it is not introduced at the cost of jobs.

Margaret Curran: May I associate myself with the Minister’s remarks about the terrible tragedy of Lockerbie?
	Low pay is one of the reasons that people are using food banks in Scotland today. I wish nothing personal towards the Minister, but I am disappointed that the Secretary of State did not answer this question himself, because we know that the Secretary of State has recently begun to struggle with some of the details of his brief. Let me see whether the Minister can do any better. Will he tell the House what the percentage increase in the number of people using food banks in Scotland in the past year has been? Given that it is Christmas, I will offer him a hand. Is it (a) 100%; (b) 200%; (c) over 400%?

David Mundell: What the hon. Lady omitted to tell us was that under her Government the increase in people using food banks was 1,000%. Our Government are concerned about people needing to use food banks in a moment of crisis in their lives. We support the development of food banks and those who operate them, and I was very proud to open the food bank in Peebles in my constituency. But to pretend that these crises are of this Government’s making and that they have not been going on for a continuing period is to mislead the House.

Margaret Curran: The Minister should know that the increase in the past year has been 435%, which is more than 34,000 people, including more than 10,000 children, using food banks in Scotland. Those are shameful figures and all Members of this House should pay attention to them. He has refused to be drawn on why this is happening. Citizens Advice, the Trussell Trust and the Child Poverty Action Group are all saying that this Government’s policies are driving people in Scotland to use food banks. Are they all wrong?

David Mundell: Of course the hon. Lady does not acknowledge the 1,000% rise in the use of food banks under the last Labour Government. We want to look at,
	and understand, why there has been an increase in the use of food banks. That is why the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has committed to an extensive study on the use of food aid across the United Kingdom, and she will be able to read that when it is published.

Illegal Immigration

Philip Hollobone: What estimate he has made of the number of illegal immigrants in Scotland.

Alistair Carmichael: Given the ability of illegal and clandestine immigrants to move freely within the UK, it is not feasible to produce separate estimates for each part of the UK.

Philip Hollobone: It would appear that the Government do not really know how many illegal immigrants there might be in Scotland. Given the attraction of the whole of the UK to people from other countries, I suspect that the problem might be rather greater than the Secretary of State imagines, particularly in cities such as Glasgow and Edinburgh. Will he reassure the House that he will work closely with the UK Border Agency to ensure that Scotland is not an easy route into the UK for illegal immigrants?

Alistair Carmichael: Certainly there should be no easy routes for anyone in these circumstances, but I would caution the hon. Gentleman against devoting too much Government resource to the compilation of figures that do not help us to tackle the problem.

Graeme Morrice: What discussion have the UK Government had with the Scottish Government about the operation of border controls in an independent Scotland?

Alistair Carmichael: We have had no such discussion so far. The truth of the matter is that either we can have an open area with no border controls or we can have closely aligned immigration policies—unlike the position of the Scottish National party, we cannot have both.

Angus MacNeil: For years, immigrants have been vital to the economy—in my constituency, I see the importance of Filipino fishermen—and, since the Union, the problem in Scotland has been emigration, not immigration. But what can we do for Syrian refugees, to enable them to come here as legal immigrants? Although the Secretary of State might have failed to get his colleagues to vote for war in Syria, what might he do this Christmas to help refugees come from Syria, especially given that Germany is taking 80% of the European total and the UK is taking zero, which Amnesty International says should cause heads to hang “in shame”?

Alistair Carmichael: This country has a long and proud record of offering asylum to those who seek it and those who deserve it and need it. That will continue to be the case.

Barnett Formula

Pete Wishart: What plans the Government have to review the Barnett formula.

Alistair Carmichael: The Government have no plans to review the Barnett formula in this Parliament.

Pete Wishart: That is not quite what the Secretary of State said only a few weeks ago. Gary Robertson asked, “What about the Barnett formula? Will that change post-2014?” The Secretary of State said—because it was he—“Let me be absolutely clear, erm, erm, er, there will be no action taken on the Barnett formula, erm, erm, until the economy has erm, er, stabilised.” Help me Rona! Why is he not just straight with the Scottish people? We all know that the bosses and the paymasters of the no campaign—his Tory friends—want Barnett scrapped. Is that not the real cost to the people of Scotland—£4 billion?

Alistair Carmichael: It is a classic of the genre—synthetic outrage at its very best. The hon. Gentleman knows that the Barnett formula is one reason why the people of Scotland reject independence. That is why he is operating his own little “Project Smear” to pretend that it is somehow at risk. The position has been put beyond any doubt today by the Prime Minister in a letter to the First Minister. The hon. Gentleman should explain that and tell the people of Scotland that the best way to get rid of the Barnett formula is to vote for independence.

Iain Stewart: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Scotland Act 2012 transferred substantial tax-raising powers to Holyrood, and that these complex changes should be allowed to bed in before we start making any further radical changes?

Alistair Carmichael: Not only do I agree with my hon. Friend on that point, but I believe that the energies of the Scottish Government would be much better served if they were devoted to dealing with the implementation of those highly complex tax changes, which are due to come on stream in 2016, rather than running around and setting up scare stories of that sort.

Ian Davidson: Is the Secretary of State aware that what we have seen today is the launch of separatists for Barnett?

Alistair Carmichael: I could not put it better or more graphically myself.

Russell Brown: The Barnett formula has served Scotland, and the Opposition believe that it is at the heart of redistribution across the entire UK, which is why we support it. I agree with the Secretary of State that the only threat to the Barnett formula is a vote for independence. Will he share with the House why he believes that the SNP Scottish Government do not understand that they are the only threat to the Barnett formula?

Alistair Carmichael: I have a strong suspicion that that is wilful on the part of the Scottish Government. As I said a few moments ago, they know that the Barnett formula is something that people in the United Kingdom value,
	so they try to pretend that there is some threat to it. That is part of their strategy. They identify things such as the pound, the Bank of England and the ability to build complex warships on the Clyde, which are the things that the people of Scotland value from being part of the United Kingdom, and then pretend that they can hold on to them while becoming independent. It is just not credible, which is why they are losing the argument.

Fisheries

Anne McIntosh: What recent discussions he has had with the Scottish Government on fisheries policy.

Alistair Carmichael: I have regular discussions with Ministers in the Scottish Government on a range of issues, including fisheries policy.
	My ministerial colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs also work closely with the Scottish Government to ensure that the interests of Scottish fishermen are fully recognised in the UK position in EU fisheries negotiations.

Anne McIntosh: I congratulate the Government on achieving reform of the common agricultural policy and on introducing an element of regional control. What assessment has my right hon. Friend made of the implications for Scottish fishermen, and will they benefit greatly from it?

Alistair Carmichael: I have long been an enthusiast for the regionalisation of the common fisheries policy, and I am delighted that, for the second round of reform, we have seen that at the heart of it. There is still more that can be done, but anything that brings fishermen, scientists and other stakeholders together in order to manage fisheries away from Brussels has got to be good.

Fiona O'Donnell: Was the right hon. Gentleman as surprised as I was to see Scottish Nationalist party Minister Richard Lochhead claiming that he has secured the quota deal for Scottish fishermen while, at the same time, complaining that he has no voice? Is it not the fact that Scottish fishing is best represented in the EU with a strong voice as part of the UK?

Alistair Carmichael: No, I was not at all surprised, because that is exactly the sort of double standard that we have seen from the SNP over the years on this and just about every other issue. The fact is that my hon. Friend the fisheries Minister led the delegation this year to the December Fisheries Council with exceptional skill. He delivered for the Scottish fleet the things that really mattered. In particular, he ensured that there was no further cut in effort and brought home important flexibility on monkfish quotas. He is to be commended for that—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. There is far too much noise in the Chamber. Let us have some quiet so that we can hear a Scottish knight, Sir Menzies Campbell.

Menzies Campbell: No pressure, then, Mr Speaker. When my right hon. Friend is giving proper consideration to the future of the fisheries industry in Scotland, will he pay particular attention to the village-based fisheries industry? That is a particular issue in areas like my constituency, based as it is on Pittenweem and surrounding ports. It is essential that the interests of the village-based fishing industry are not subjected to the sometimes overbearing influence of those who go further out to sea.

Alistair Carmichael: I know from my constituency experience that the small inshore fleet is of great importance to the communities represented by me and my right hon. and learned Friend. His point is well made, and it is important that we do what we can to sustain the fleet in those small ports.

Eilidh Whiteford: The Secretary of State knows that the postponement of the negotiations with Norway over shared North sea stocks means that the fishing fleet faces an uncertain new year. Will he support the Scottish Government’s calls for an increase in the North sea cod quota next year, in line with the scientific advice?

Alistair Carmichael: As the hon. Lady knows, that is a subject to be determined at the EU-Norway talks in January. They have been held over, and although such an increase would be desirable—it is certainly what the industry is looking for—that is not entirely within our gift, as it is an EU negotiation.

Energy Prices

Michael Weir: What assessment he has made of the effect of energy prices on consumers in rural areas of Scotland.

David Mundell: I know from my own constituency that rural consumers face particular challenges on energy bills. The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon), who is responsible for energy, is working with all interested parties to obtain more secure and affordable off-grid supplies. I am due to meet the Office of Fair Trading early in the new year to discuss the matter.

Michael Weir: I thank the Minister for that answer. As he is well aware, rural consumers who are off the grid are often forgotten in arguments over energy prices. The energy company obligation is supposed to be technologically neutral, but the major energy companies will not include LPG or oil boilers in their schemes, which is surely discriminatory. Will he press his colleagues in the Department of Energy and Climate Change to ensure that such boilers are included in ECO schemes?

David Mundell: I am happy to do that. The hon. Gentleman has championed the issue of off-grid supplies, and I suggest that we hold a round table, as we did on rural fuel, with DECC and interested Scottish MPs to discuss that and other issues.

John Thurso: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the particular difficulties in remote rural areas, where there is no access to main supplies for both gas and oil? Will he commend the concept of heating oil clubs, such as the one I am promoting in Landward Caithness? They have done much to depress that cost. What can the Government do to assist?

David Mundell: The Government are keen to support oil clubs like the one in Landward Caithness. I am sure that the issues that concern the hon. Gentleman’s constituents will be ably discussed at our proposed round table in the Scotland Office with DECC and Scottish MPs.

Anas Sarwar: Why do the SNP, the Tories and the Liberal Democrats all agree that the price should go on the energy bill and the tax bill and that the energy companies should be let off scot-free?

David Mundell: We believe that something should be done about the mess in the electricity industry that the hon. Gentleman’s party left behind. That is why we are seeking to move people on to lower tariffs, that is why we are rolling back green levies, and that is why we are encouraging competition. What his party offers is a gimmick and a con.

North Sea Oil and Gas

Tom Greatrex: What assessment he has made of the interim report by Sir Ian Wood on the future regulation of oil and gas extraction in the North sea.

Alistair Carmichael: The interim report by Sir Ian Wood has given Government and industry alike plenty to think about and that is exactly why we asked him to carry out his review in the first place. After his final report is submitted early next year, the Government will set out our plans to make the most of our offshore oil and gas fields.

Tom Greatrex: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. He will be aware that Sir Ian Wood’s report refers to much of the North sea as a mature environment and to the need for collaboration to maximise the economic recovery for what is, by record, a volatile and, by definition, diminishing resource. Does he agree that the fragmentation of fiscal and regulatory regimes through separate arrangements for Scotland and for the rest of the UK continental shelf would minimise the chance of achieving that outcome?

Alistair Carmichael: I think it is very clear to all who have an informed view of the industry that its best future lies as part of the United Kingdom, rather than as part of a Scotland separated from the rest of the United Kingdom. It is a mature industry that still has a great deal to offer, but it is telling that the Scottish Government’s recent White Paper gives absolutely no guarantees about the future of field allowances in the industry, which will be absolutely crucial to its future development.

Mr Speaker: The Secretary of State will not want to talk out his hon. Friend, Sir Robert Smith.

Robert Smith: Is not the most exciting thing about Sir Ian Wood’s report the consensus he has discovered in the industry, which is that with more regulation and a stronger regulator with more resources there is the potential to unlock even greater investment, supporting jobs, taxpaying and energy security?

Alistair Carmichael: The real strength of the Wood report, at least the interim version, is its credibility in the industry, because it has been informed by the industry and led by one of its most respected figures.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

David Anderson: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 18 December.

David Cameron: I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in sending our warmest wishes for Christmas to our armed forces in Afghanistan. Having just returned from there, I saw at first hand once again their incredible commitment and dedication. We should remember the families who will be missing them, especially at this time of year, and indeed we should remember all our service personnel around the world. Our country owes them a huge amount for the work they do and the sacrifices they make on our behalf.
	This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, and in addition to my duties in the House I shall have further such meetings later today.

David Anderson: I join the Prime Minister in sending our warmest wishes to our armed forces, and also to all the public sector workers taking care of us over the Christmas period.
	Unless the Mesothelioma Bill is changed, 6,000 victims who were criminally and negligently exposed to asbestos at work will not receive any compensation from insurance companies. Will the Prime Minister intervene at the eleventh hour to prevent that happening? If he does not, it will be fair to assume that he would rather stand up for the insurance companies than for innocent people who were exposed to asbestos at work.

David Cameron: I very much respect the hon. Gentleman’s record of campaigning on this issue, but I will say this: the Mesothelioma Bill is a huge step forward. Frankly, for decades there has been no provision for these people, through no fault of their own, who will die from this terrible disease. Once the scheme that we are putting in place is up and running, roughly 300 people a year will receive approximately £115,000 each. I think that is an important step forward. I will obviously look at what he has to say, but I think that we should be proud of the fact that after a long delay we are tackling this issue.

John Whittingdale: Will my right hon. Friend join me in saluting the courage of the hundreds of thousands of people who have been peacefully
	protesting across Ukraine for the past few weeks against their President’s decision to break off talks with Europe and to move closer to Russia? Does he agree that if there is any further violence against them, those responsible should be held personally accountable, and will he continue to hold out the prospect of closer links with Europe in the longer term, which is what the people of Ukraine want?

David Cameron: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that we should pay tribute to those in Ukraine who want a future linked to Europe and the peace, prosperity and stability that that relationship would bring. I think we should also say, as he has said very clearly, that the world is watching what the Ukrainian authorities have done and are contemplating doing in response to the demonstrations. I think we should stand with the people of Ukraine, who want that peaceful, secure and prosperous future.

Edward Miliband: I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to all our troops serving around the world, particularly in Afghanistan. Once again this year, they have done our country proud. They have shown the utmost courage and bravery. All our thoughts are with them and their families this Christmas.
	Today’s economic figures show a welcome fall in unemployment, and for every person who gets back into work it benefits not just them but their family as well. Does the Prime Minister agree, however, that it is a major challenge for Britain that at the end of this year there are more people than ever before in today’s figures working part time because they cannot get the hours they need?

David Cameron: It is worth looking at these unemployment figures in some detail, because I think they do paint an encouraging picture. Unemployment is down by 99,000 and the number of people claiming unemployment benefit has actually fallen by 36,000 in this month alone. There are 250,000 more people in work. Youth unemployment is down. Long-term unemployment is down. Unemployment among women is down. We have talked before about 1 million more people in work under this Government; there are now 1.2 million more in work. There should not be one ounce of complacency, because we have still got work to do to get our country back to work. Having everyone back in work means greater stability for them, a greater ability to plan for their future, and greater help for their families. But the plan is working; let us stick at it and get unemployment down even further.

Edward Miliband: The Prime Minister did not really answer the specific question I asked. It is good that our economy is creating more jobs, but the problem is that too many of them are part time, low paid or insecure. Today’s figures show what is happening to wages. Does he agree with me that it is a matter of deep concern that at the end of this year average wages are £364 lower than they were a year ago and over £1,500 lower than they were at the general election?

David Cameron: Let me answer very directly the question about full-time and part-time employment. Actually, full-time employment has grown much faster
	in recent months, and overall since the election 70% of the new jobs—and there have been millions of new jobs—are full-time jobs. I agree that we have got more to do. We have got to do more to put in place our long-term economic plan to keep the economy growing. I have to say to the right hon. Gentleman that it is all very well standing up at the Dispatch Box and saying that there would be 1 million fewer jobs; we are still waiting for him to correct the record about that. Of course I want to see more money in people’s pockets. The only way we can do that is to keep on with the economic plan, keep cutting unemployment, keep people’s taxes down, and cut the deficit so that we keep interest rates down. That is our economic plan; what is his?

Edward Miliband: Let us talk about the Prime Minister’s predictions. He said that he would balance the books in five years; he has failed. He said that he would secure Britain’s credit rating; he has failed. The worst prediction of all is that he said he would be good at being Prime Minister, and he has certainly failed at that. He has got no answer—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. Members on both sides of the House need to calm down. It will take as long as it takes, as always; it is very straightforward.

Edward Miliband: Is it not interesting, Mr Speaker, that the thing they want to talk about least of all is the cost of living crisis facing families up and down the country? That is because they know that families are worse off. Can the Prime Minister tell us how much higher the average gas and electricity bill is this Christmas compared to last?

David Cameron: First of all, let us deal with the predictions. The right hon. Gentleman said this—

Mr Speaker: Order. The question was asked and the answer must be heard.

David Cameron: They have a programme which will clearly lead to the disappearance of 1 million jobs. Now we have 1.6 million more private sector jobs and 1.2 million more people in work, it is time that the right hon. Gentleman apologised for his prediction talking the economy down. He asks about the cost of living; let us compare our records on the cost of living. They doubled council tax; we have frozen it. They put up petrol tax times 12 times; we have frozen it. They put up the basic state pension by 75p; we have put it up by £15. [Interruption.] Ah, we have a new hand gesture from the shadow Chancellor! I would have thought that after today’s briefing in the papers the hand gesture for the shadow Chancellor should be bye-bye. You don’t need it to be Christmas to know when you are sitting next to a turkey. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. We will wait until colleagues calm down. I do not mind how long it takes; I have all day if necessary.

Edward Miliband: I thought that, just for once, the Prime Minister might answer the question he was asked. Let us give him the answer: energy bills are £70 higher than they were a year ago—despite all his bluster, that is the reality—and £300 higher than when he came to office.
	Let us try the Prime Minister on another important issue for families. The cost of child care is crucial for parents going out to work. Can he tell us how much the cost of child care has gone up this year?

David Cameron: We are providing 15 hours of child care—of nursery education—for two-year-olds, three-year-olds and four-year-olds. That is something the right hon. Gentleman was never able to do in government. It is all very well for him to make promises, but the only reason why we are able to keep our promises is that we took tough decisions about the economy. We took tough and difficult decisions to get the deficit down. We took difficult decisions to get our economic plan in place.
	What the right hon. Gentleman cannot stand is the fact that this Christmas the economy is growing, 1.2 million more people are in work, our exports are increasing, manufacturing is up, construction is doing better, the economy is getting stronger and Labour is getting weaker.

Edward Miliband: I tell you what, Mr Speaker, that was a turkey of an answer. Why does not the Prime Minister, just for once, answer the question? Child care costs have gone up £300 in the past year—nearly three times the rate of inflation—and he is not doing anything about it.
	There is one group the Prime Minister has helped out with the cost of living this year: those on his Christmas card list. I know he does not like my asking about this, but can he tell us how much lower the taxes of someone earning more than £1 million a year are this year compared with last year?

David Cameron: The top rate of tax under this Government is higher than it ever was under the right hon. Gentleman’s Government. The fact is that the highest 1% of earners are paying a greater percentage of income tax than they did when he was sitting in the Cabinet. Those are the facts. If he wants to talk about what he has done on the cost of living, we have cut income tax for 25 million people, but Labour voted against it. We have taken 2.4 million people out of tax, they voted against it. We froze the council tax, they voted against it. We froze fuel duty, they voted against it. The only reason we have been able to do this is that we have a long-term economic plan. The right hon. Gentleman ends the year with no plan, no credibility and no idea how to help our economy.

Edward Miliband: We all know what the Prime Minister’s long-term plan is: to cut taxes for those on his Christmas card list and make everyone else sink or swim. That is his long-term plan. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. The usual low graders can make as much noise as they like. Let me just say to them, for their own benefit—I will say it again; some of them do not learn very quickly—that however long it takes, right hon. and hon. Members will be heard. It is so simple, I think it is probably now clear.

Edward Miliband: The more the Prime Minister reads out lists of statistics, the more out of touch he seems to the country. This was the year that the cost of living crisis hit families hardest. This was the year the Government
	introduced the bedroom tax while cutting taxes for millionaires. This was the year he proved beyond doubt that he is the Prime Minister for the few, not the many.

David Cameron: The right hon. Gentleman may not like the facts, but he cannot hide from them. The typical taxpayer is paying £600 less because we cut taxes. The deficit is falling—it is down by a third—because we took difficult decisions. Today, for the first time in our history, there are 30 million people in our country in work. The fact is that at the end of this year we have a recovery Labour cannot explain, growth it said would never come, and jobs it said would never happen. Meanwhile, it is stuck with an economic policy that does not add up and a shadow Chancellor it cannot defend. That is why the British people will never trust Labour with the economy again.

Malcolm Bruce: rose—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. We will just have to keep going a bit longer, because I am not going to have—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman will be heard.

Malcolm Bruce: I can give the House something to cheer about. Will the Prime Minister join me in welcoming the fact that investment in our North sea oil and gas industry this year will reach a record £14 billion, accounting for an unemployment rate in my constituency of just 0.7%, but is he aware of Sir Ian Wood’s report that says we need collaboration between Government and industry to unlock between £3 billion and £4 billion barrels of oil worth £200 billion that will otherwise be left under the sea?

David Cameron: My right hon. Friend makes a very important point: the Wood report is an excellent report and we are looking to put that in place because we want to maximise the returns and the employment and the investment in the North sea. In recent months we have seen very encouraging signs of greater investment in the North sea, not least because of the decisions taken by the Chancellor to bring into play some of the more marginal fields. We need to keep up with that and implement the Wood report as my right hon. Friend says.

Gregory Campbell: Does the Prime Minister understand, even if Dr Richard Haass does not, that agreement and consensus in his talks are desirable but will be impossible to achieve if proposals re-emerge that are viewed in the Unionist community as diluting our very essence of Britishness as Northern Ireland seeks to strengthen its position within the United Kingdom, not weaken it?

David Cameron: I think we all agree that Richard Haass is carrying out a very important and extremely difficult task: looking into the issues of parades, of flags and, of course, the past. I have met with Richard Haass, and I think he is an incredibly impressive individual. We should let him do his work and we should judge his work on the results he produces, but I hope that everyone will try to look at this process with some give and take to try and bring the communities together.

Stewart Jackson: Unemployment in the Peterborough constituency stands at 5.5%, the lowest it has been since the financial crisis, and there were 1,180 fewer jobseeker’s allowance claimants than a year ago. However, there are too many young people who are jobless and lacking work skills, so will the Prime Minister give an early Christmas present to Peterborough people by giving his personal support to our bid for a university technical college, to be decided in the new year?

David Cameron: I know that my right hon. Friend the Education Secretary will look closely at the proposal for a university technical college. They are working well, and I think that is a very good innovation in our education system.
	The news on youth unemployment is better—19,000 down this quarter—and the claimant count is falling as well, but there is a lot more work to do. I think we should particularly look at the work experience programmes which seem to have one of the best records at reducing youth unemployment and see what we can do to encourage companies and businesses to get involved in this work experience programme.

Nick Raynsford: With the Archbishop of Canterbury reminding us of society’s responsibility to support the poor and the vulnerable, and the Archbishop of Westminster specifically criticising the inhumanity of aspects of Government policy, does the Prime Minister regret, as we approach Christmas, his Government’s retreat from the compassionate Conservatism he used to adopt?

David Cameron: I do not accept what the right hon. Gentleman says at all. There is nothing more compassionate than getting more people into work. The best route out of poverty is work and what we can see for the first time in our country is 30 million people in work. I enjoy debating and listening carefully to our Archbishops. I have to say that I do not agree with what the Archbishop of Westminster said about immigration, but I think we should be frank and open about these debates and not be concerned when we do have disagreements.

Therese Coffey: Thank you for calling me, Mr Speaker, and a merry Christmas to you and your family. The people of Suffolk have enjoyed a cracker of a Christmas present with the excellent news on the A14, which will encourage greater investment and growth. In that spirit, does my right hon. Friend agree that calls to abandon the Government’s long-term economic plan and adopt the Opposition’s plan to borrow and spend more will raise taxes and mortgage rates for hard-working people in this country?

David Cameron: First, I congratulate my hon. Friend on her ingenious way of ensuring that she is called regularly in debates and questions in this House, an example that I am sure others will follow. On that note, a very happy Christmas to you and your wife and children, Mr Speaker.
	My hon. Friend has been very clear in her campaign against the toll on the A14, and I am glad that we have settled that issue. She is right to say that the biggest threat to our economy now would be to abandon our plan. We are getting the deficit down; we are keeping interest rates down; we are cutting people’s taxes; and we are seeing the country get back to work. The biggest risk is more borrowing, more spending, more taxes—all the things that got us into this mess in the first place.

Clive Betts: At the end of November, I visited Handsworth Grange community sports college in my constituency. The head, Anne Quaile, told me about the school collecting food to help their needy families over Christmas. Indeed, there will be a food bank on the school site in the new year. What really shocked me was when she told me about a young girl, aged 15, who arrived on a Monday—just before my visit—not having eaten all weekend, because there was no food in the house. How does the Prime Minister expect that young girl to fulfil her educational potential?

David Cameron: We have to do everything we can to help Britain’s families and to help families into work, and that is exactly what we are doing under this Government. We also have to make sure that we protect the income levels of the poorest, and that is why, for instance, child tax credit is up £390 under this Government, protecting the money that goes to the poorest people in our country.

Ian Swales: Experts said that Labour’s energy price freeze announcement—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. Opposition Members should not yell at the hon. Gentleman. He is asking his question. Let us hear it.

Ian Swales: Experts said that Labour’s energy price freeze announcement would raise prices in the short term and protect the big six by freezing new investment. Since then, prices have gone up. National Grid says that half of new investment—

Mr Speaker: Order. I am struggling to find anything that relates to the responsibility of the Prime Minister in the hon. Gentleman’s question. Therefore, we will proceed with Mr Gordon Marsden.

Gordon Marsden: As the Prime Minister sits down for Christmas dinner to chillax with his family and friends, will he spare a thought for my Blackpool constituents and 500,000 others, whose Christmas will be mired in the incompetence and random cruelty of the benefit sanctions imposed by the Department for Work and Pensions? My casework on this includes a woman denied jobseeker’s allowance for doing voluntary work at one local branch of a national charity rather than at another. Will his new year resolution be to resolve the chaos of sanctions and of universal credit?

David Cameron: I think the best thing we can do for the hon. Gentleman’s constituents, and indeed everyone’s constituents, is to keep on with the economic plan that is generating more jobs in our country. If we look at the
	north-west, the number of people employed is up by 37,000 since the election, and unemployment has fallen by 29,000 since the election. We need to keep on with that, while of course making sure that the benefit system works for people who need it, but he does not do his constituents any favours by talking down the performance of the economy.

Henry Bellingham: Will the Prime Minister pay tribute to Norfolk’s emergency services and volunteers, who have done such a brilliant job both in tackling the recent coastal floods and in helping to repair the damage? The floods were potentially worse than the floods of 60 years ago that killed 300 people and destroyed 25,000 homes. Does he agree that special mention should be made of two local newspapers, Eastern Daily Press and Lynn News, which have campaigned tirelessly? The former has raised more than £100,000 in its appeal. Will he tell the House what Departments can do, working in conjunction with Norfolk’s local authorities?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this issue. I was very impressed when I went to Norfolk—to Wells-next-the-Sea—to see the amazing contribution made by not only the emergency services, but, as he said, local newspapers in highlighting this issue and helping to prepare people for what was to come, as well as the flood co-ordinators and the people who work voluntarily to help our communities. I was particularly impressed by what I saw the lifeboats had done. An enormous wave swept through their station but, even with that, they were able to get out there and help people. As he says, because we have put money into flood defences, we protected a lot more homes that otherwise would have been affected, but the work needs to continue.

Derek Twigg: Ministers have admitted to me that there are delays in completing personal independence payment claims. My constituent, Kathy, who is suffering from cancer, made her claim in August, but a decision is still to be made. She had a home appointment yesterday with an Atos assessor, but they did not turn up. Why is the Prime Minister allowing cancer patients to suffer because of the incompetence of his Government?

David Cameron: I am very happy to look at the individual case that the hon. Gentleman raises. It is worth noting that Atos worked under the last Government, in which he served. I am happy to look at the individual case to see what can be done.

John Howell: The number of unemployed claimants in the Henley constituency has fallen to 439. That makes it the third best performing constituency in the country. Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating local businesses for the role that they have played in that?

David Cameron: I am very happy to congratulate local businesses on what they have done. What we are seeing, which Labour predicted would never happen, is a private sector-led recovery. For every job that has been lost in the public sector, we have seen three or even four jobs created in the private sector, mostly by small businesses.
	We need to keep up the economic environment that is helping those businesses to take people on, invest and grow.

John McDonnell: At the last election, many of my constituents truly believed the Prime Minister when he said
	“no ifs, no buts, no third runway”
	at Heathrow. They are now faced with the threat of a third runway and a fourth runway, with thousands losing their homes and schools being demolished. There is even the threat that we will have to dig up our dead from the local cemetery. Does he appreciate that many have lost all faith in him as a man who keeps his word?

David Cameron: The hon. Gentleman has a very strong view about this matter, but I simply do not accept what he says. We said that there would not be a third runway. We have stuck with that promise. We now have a report that is being done by Howard Davies, which has all-party support. The interim report is very good.

John McDonnell: You have lied to my constituents.

David Cameron: I think that people should read that report before they start shouting across the House of Commons in a completely inappropriate way. [Hon. Members: “Order.”]

Mr Speaker: Order. I know what I am doing. I do not need any help from Back Benchers. A reference was made to the treatment of constituents, not to observations that have been made in respect of Members of the House. I am clear on that and the procedure is extremely clear as well.

Guy Opperman: In the north-east, all 29 constituencies have seen an increase in apprenticeship starts since 2010. I recently opened an engineering academy in Hexham. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is only through the provision of better skills and apprenticeships that we will improve the living standards of our young people?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I saw for myself on a visit to Stockton and Darlington what a difference the extra apprenticeships and funding are making. We want the recovery to be shared right across our country. In the north-east, unemployment has fallen by 3,000 this quarter, but it is still too high. There are 28,000 more people in work than there were at the time of the election, but we have further to go and we must stick to the economic plan that is delivering.

Iain Wright: Is the Prime Minister concerned that in the detail of the small print of the autumn statement, it says that by the end of this Parliament real wage levels will be 5.8% lower?

David Cameron: The point that I would make to the hon. Gentleman is that disposable income is higher this year than in any year between 1997 and 2010. The reason for that is that, in spite of slow wage growth, we have cut people’s taxes. We can cut people’s taxes only if
	we take difficult decisions about the deficit and about spending. We have not had the support of the Labour party for a single one of those difficult decisions.

Anne Main: Will the Prime Minister help to get justice for my constituents, who want to know why an investigation into the meetings that were had by Theresa Villiers, the former Transport Minister, has not been reported on, despite four months of waiting and various assurances that I would have the answer?

Mr Speaker: The hon. Lady was referring to the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs Villiers).

David Cameron: I am aware of my hon. Friend’s letters about this matter. She has taken up the issue and I am sure that she will get an answer shortly.

Stephen Pound: On a slightly more seasonal note, may I probe the Prime Minister on the revelation in the autumn statement that over this Parliament, borrowing is forecast to be £198 billion higher than originally planned? Will he accept that his pledge to balance the books by 2015 had all the credibility of a proposal to build an airport on a non-existent island in the middle of a bird sanctuary in the Thames estuary?

David Cameron: The hon. Gentleman always brings a flavour of pantomime to our proceedings. If he is worried about the deficit, and if he is worried about borrowing, he ought to look in front of him, rather than behind him, because we have not had one bit of support for anything we have done to cut the deficit. If he is worried about the deficit, why does the Labour party propose to put it up?

Harriett Baldwin: It is very good news that a record number of people are in work and keeping more of their take-home pay, but there was another milestone this week when we reached 2 million new pension savers, thanks to auto-enrolment. Is that another example of how this Government are taking the right long-term decisions for this country?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is right to raise auto-enrolment. It means that more people are saving for their retirement, which means more stability and security for them, and a greater ability to plan for their future. There are 30 million people in work—so many more in work this Christmas than there were last Christmas—all of whom are better able to plan for their future and have that basic security that people in our country rightly crave.

Steve Reed: Now that the Prime Minister has declared mission accomplished in Afghanistan, will he guarantee that none of our brave servicemen and women who have served there will face redundancy after they come home?

David Cameron: I urge the hon. Gentleman to look at what I said when I was praising the role that our armed forces have played. They have carried out the tasks that we asked them to carry out, and they have
	done it with huge professionalism and skill. As I said, they will be able to leave that country with their heads held high, secure in the knowledge that we put in place what is necessary to stop terrorism and terrorist training camps returning to Afghanistan. Very clear rules are in place about redundancy, which mean that those people about to serve, serving, or having returned from Afghanistan, are not able for redundancy.

Robin Walker: Today 1,000 fewer people are out of work in Worcester than when unemployment peaked under Labour. With 700 businesses in the constituency likely to benefit from the Government’s extension of small business rates relief, I urge the Prime Minister to continue to do everything he can to help the high street and remove burdens on businesses creating jobs.

David Cameron: What is happening in Worcester is welcome news. Across the country not only is unemployment down but vacancies are up, which is good news for the future. In terms of the high street, I think we have taken some important steps forward with the rate rebate of £1,000 announced in the autumn statement for businesses on the high street, and, of course, the £2,000 employment allowance, which means that businesses do not have to pay their first £2,000 of national insurance contributions. That means that businesses in Worcester and elsewhere will be able to take on more people.

Luciana Berger: Further to the question from the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main), four months have passed since serious allegations were made that the Northern Ireland Secretary broke the ministerial code during her time as Transport Minister. Will the Prime Minister ensure that the Cabinet Secretary responds before the House rises for the Christmas recess?

David Cameron: I have seen a copy of the Cabinet Secretary’s response, and I am confident it will be sent in the next few days.

Philip Davies: I welcome the Prime Minister’s acceptance that something needs to be done to stop EU migrants accessing British benefits. Would he agree that what he is proposing—which will probably be found illegal by the European Court—is really spitting in the wind when it comes to the problem we face, and that the only way to get back control of our borders and our benefits system is to leave the European Union?

David Cameron: I do not share my hon. Friend’s pessimism and we are taking these steps—including the announcement today that people coming to the UK should not be able to claim benefits within the first three months—on the basis of legal advice, and looking carefully at what other countries in the EU do. I want to do everything possible to ensure that the right of free movement is not abused. There is a right to work in different countries of the European Union, but there should not be a right to claim in different countries of the European Union. Where I would agree with my hon. Friend is that I think we need to do more in future, and we must learn the lesson from the mistake that Labour made by giving unfettered access to our labour
	market when Poland and others joined the European Union. That led to 1.5 million people coming to our country and was a profound mistake.

Julie Elliott: Average household incomes will be substantially lower in 2015 than they were in 2009. Is the Prime Minister concerned about that? What does he say to my constituents, who are struggling with the cost of living crisis caused by his Government’s policies?

David Cameron: The first thing I would say to the hon. Lady’s constituents is that we are raising to £10,000 the amount people can earn before they pay income tax. That is worth £705 to a typical taxpayer. Because of the progress we have already made, disposable income this year is higher than it was in any year between 1997 and 2010. Opposition Members might not like those facts, but they are true. It is worth remembering why we are in this situation in the first place. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister has a very strong voice, but he should not have to shout to make himself heard. Let us hear the Prime Minister’s answer.

David Cameron: The point I was making is that the reason we are in this situation was laid out by the Institute for Fiscal Studies two weeks ago. It pointed out that we had the biggest recession for 100 years under the last Government, which cost the typical family £3,000. Opposition Members should apologise for that before moving on to the next question.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Last but not least, I call Mr Rory Stewart.

Rory Stewart: Christmas in Syria will be defined by unstopping grief and horror in sub-zero temperatures. I encourage the Prime Minister to keep a relentless focus on humanitarian relief in Syria, to encourage the rest of the international community to meet the UN’s demands for £4 billion of assistance, and to ensure that that assistance is much more imaginative and generous.

David Cameron: On behalf of the House, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that issue before Christmas. That is where our thoughts should be. There is a huge humanitarian crisis affecting up to half of the Syrian population. Britain can be proud of the fact that, at £500 million, we are the second-largest bilateral donor of aid going to Syria and neighbouring countries and we are helping people in those refugee camps. We should encourage other countries to step up to the plate in the way we have done, and ensure that we fulfil our moral obligations to those people who will suffer at Christmas time.

Michael Connarty: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: Order. There is to be an urgent question. I feel sure the hon. Gentleman can keep his point of order in the oven until after that.

Local Government Finance

Hilary Benn: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government if he will make a statement on the provisional local government finance settlement.

Brandon Lewis: My Department has today published the provisional financial settlement for English local authorities for 2014-15 and 2015-16. The technical details are outlined in a written statement, and associated documents have been placed in the Library and in the Vote Office. This is effectively the second year of a settlement announced last year. We have been consulting over the summer on the detail of the statement, so it should not come as a surprise to any local authority.
	This year’s settlement is fair to all parts of the country—rural or urban, district or county, city or shire—meaning that councils can deliver sensible savings while protecting front-line services. Every bit of the public sector needs to do its bit to pay off Labour’s deficit, including local government, which, we should remember, accounts for a quarter of all public spending.
	Opinion polls clearly suggest that satisfaction with local government is either constant or even improved compared with 2010, despite the need for councils to make savings to tackle that deficit. Today’s fair funding deal arms councils with a significant spending power average of £2,089 per household.
	The autumn statement protected local authorities from further spending reductions for 2014-2015 and 2015-16. Overall, the average spending power reduction for councils in 2014-15 is expected to be limited to just 2.9% per household. Extra funding has been provided for sparse rural areas. With English councils spending £117 billion this year, councils must continue to focus on cutting waste and making sensible savings. There is significant scope for councils to merge back-office services or do more joint working: get more for less and they will do better with their £60 billion a year procurement budget; tackle £2 billion of local fraud; reduce the £2 billion of lost money in council tax arrears or use their record £19 billion of reserves; and get better value for money from their billions in property assets.
	Local authorities should be looking to protect their residents and give them help with the cost of living. Extra funding is on offer to councils to freeze council tax for a fourth year in a row. The Government have provided up to £550 million for the next two years, which allows for a fourth year of freeze worth up to £718 for the average bill payer, with more savings to come next year. I am proud to be part of a Government that have allowed that freeze in council tax. In contrast, the previous Labour Government doubled council tax for hard-working people.
	From April next year, funding for the 2011-12 and 2013-14 freezes will be in the main local government settlement total for future years. Funding for the next two freeze years will also be built into the spending review baseline, which will give maximum possible certainty for councils that the extra funding for freezing council tax will remain available without a cliff-edge effect. The Government are clearing up the mess left by the previous
	Labour Government, paying off Labour’s deficit and helping hard-working people with the cost of living. Councils are doing well and playing their part.

Hilary Benn: Given the scale of the cuts affecting local authorities, the Minister really should have made an oral statement today instead of having to be dragged to the House. Will he explain why the further cut of, supposedly, 10% in real terms—announced by the Chancellor in the spending round for 2015-16—is actually a 15% real cut to the settlement funding assessment? Why are the most disadvantaged communities once again the hardest hit? Will he confirm that by 2017 the city of Liverpool, the most deprived local authority in the country, will have lost 62% of the Government grant it was receiving in 2010? How on earth can he justify that? As the Audit Commission recently reported:
	“Councils serving the most deprived areas have seen the largest reductions in funding relative to spending.”?
	Tough times do indeed require tough decisions, but this Government, as they have shown time and again, from the bedroom tax to the top rate of tax and local government funding, take most from those who have least. That is unfair and unjust.
	Despite Government talk of a freeze, many councils, including Tory authority after Tory authority, will increase the council tax next year, including for residents who work but are on the lowest incomes and will lose council tax benefit. Why is the Minister top-slicing money from council funding that is based on need, and putting it into the so-called “new homes bonus” in areas where new homes would have been built anyway? Does he not realise that hundreds of thousands of vulnerable people have already been denied social care due to cuts in council funding, while the Government have wasted money on their expensive and failed reorganisation of the NHS? Is it not the case that even more people will lose out because of what has been announced today?
	Another week, another Minister in denial—when will the Government realise that the future set out today means that more and more councils in the years ahead will simply not be able to maintain the services on which so many people rely?

Brandon Lewis: I am somewhat surprised; I had been expecting the right hon. Gentleman to outline for the first time these several years exactly where Labour’s promised £52 billion of cuts would come from.
	In reality, we have heard nothing new this morning. This statement comes after last year’s statement set out a two-year settlement for local authorities. In fact, whereas more than 3% had been predicted, this year local authorities will get a 2.9% reduction, falling to below 2% next year. So it is a good news day for local government. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman’s comments did not match up with the facts of life. The Audit Commission’s recent report outlined how local authorities were coping well with the changes. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. Mr Ronnie Campbell—[Interruption.] Order. Your apprenticeship to become a statesman will never be completed at this rate. I know you are a bit over-ebullient, but you must calm yourself. [Interruption.] Calm yourself. I say two things, if I may: first, Members must not shout at the Minister, and
	secondly, I think the Minister was deploying a rhetorical device, but he will be aware that on these occasions, a question is put to Ministers; it is not an occasion for another party to set out policy. That is not the nature of the urgent question procedure, but I know, from his wry smile, that the Minister is well aware of that important fact.

Brandon Lewis: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Your point is well made. I think the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr Campbell) must be excited about the local government settlement, as we all are today—it is an exciting day for local government.
	If the right hon. Gentleman looks at the figures, he will see that we have gone even further this year to protect the most difficult areas and those councils left abandoned by the last Labour Government through their reduction in the working neighbourhood fund. I am thinking of councils such as my local authority of Great Yarmouth and others such as Pendle and Hastings, which they left with massive black holes that this Government have filled with the transitional grant. Those councils will be protected even further this year with a reduction of no more than 2.9%, which is good news for local authorities working hard to deliver good front-line services—services that Labour left hanging on a ledge.
	The right hon. Gentleman referred to councils such as Liverpool. I gently remind him that Liverpool and Newcastle are similar in being among the best-supported councils in the country and having the highest spending power per dwelling. For example, Newcastle receives £2,400 per dwelling, which is about £900 more than areas such as Windsor and Maidenhead. I think that he and his colleagues should look at the figures. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: We will get through these matters. I call Mr Philip Hollobone.

Philip Hollobone: Under the leadership of councillor Russell Roberts, Kettering borough council, of which I have the privilege to be a member, has for the past three years offered a policy of “triple zero”: no cuts to front-line services, no cuts to voluntary grants and no increase in council tax. The Minister will know, because he has twice visited Kettering borough council, that it is an exemplary local authority. Does the message not go out that if Kettering can do this, other councils, if they really want to, can also do it?

Brandon Lewis: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Kettering is an excellent example of a good Conservative council managing its finances properly for the benefit of local residents, keeping down the cost of living by keeping council tax frozen and providing excellent front-line services, as good councils all over the country are doing.

Clive Betts: In the June spending round, the Chancellor stated that in future years local government spending would drop not by the 10% to 15% that the Local Government Association said, but by 2.3%. The Prime Minister has repeated that figure. I wrote to him asking how it was calculated, but got a response from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury that did not do that. Will the Minister now explain
	where that 2.3% figure is in the document and how it is calculated? If it is not in here now, will he write to me, placing a copy in the Library, showing how it has been calculated?

Brandon Lewis: I am happy to write to the Chairman of the Communities and Local Government Committee with the figures. He will find that the gap between some of the points the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) made and the real figures is explained by the fact that we are interested in how much local authorities have to spend on their residents, not just what they spend on bureaucracy and red tape, through the Government grant.

Annette Brooke: I welcome for the second year running the one-off payment to sparse rural areas, but many well-run councils of all political colours are predicting a cliff edge in 2015, when they fear they will have to cut services dramatically. What advice would the Minister give those councils following today’s statement?

Brandon Lewis: I am sure my hon. Friend will be pleased to know that the settlement for rural areas will be rolled into the base, giving them a better base going forward, enabling them to continue their good work of sharing services and management and ensuring they are efficient and delivering good front-line services for residents.

Nick Raynsford: I remind the Minister that for many years—in fact, decades—it has been an accepted practice for Ministers to announce the provisional settlement in the House, to allow proper debate and discussion, in good time and preferably around the end of November or early December. I put it to the hon. Gentleman that it does not help local government to have a late—no, very late—provisional settlement put out by written statement, with the Minister subsequently being dragged here to answer an urgent question.

Brandon Lewis: Far from being dragged here, I always find it a pleasure to be at the Dispatch Box. The right hon. Gentleman might like to look back at past records and see that his own party regularly made written statements. More importantly, local government has had two years’ notice, as we made an oral statement on a two-year settlement last year.

Nick de Bois: Does the Minister agree that it is unacceptable that Enfield Labour council has allowed uncollected council tax to increase over the last three years, against the trend for the rest of London, from £6 million to a staggering collective £32 million, particularly given that those figures already discount uncollectable council tax?

Brandon Lewis: My hon. Friend makes a good point. There is some £2 billion-worth of uncollected council tax, and councils should be working on the problem. This is not councils’ money, but taxpayers’ money. Whenever there is uncollected council tax, it costs other taxpayers more money. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight this issue; good councils will be working hard on it.

Ronnie Campbell: rose—

Mr Speaker: The hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr Campbell) has often been heard from his seat; it is now time that he was heard on his feet. I call Mr Ronnie Campbell.

Ronnie Campbell: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and a merry Christmas to you.
	Is the Minister aware that in Northumberland, where I come from, we have had to cut £30 million this year and £60 million last year, and we are sacking workers and cutting social services, while education has been cut right down to the bone—and there is no money left? The Minister is living in cloud cuckoo land.

Brandon Lewis: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will go back and convince his local authority, using his great powers of persuasion, to do the right thing by its residents—to cut back-office costs and bureaucracy and perhaps look at our Department’s “50 ways to save” document. That would help the council to protect front-line services rather than try to score political points with people’s everyday lives.

David Nuttall: Last year, hard-working families in my Bury North constituency faced an inflation-busting increase of 3.5% in their council tax, which was put down to the levies imposed by the Greater Manchester joint authorities. Can the Minister assure them that the same thing will not happen again next year?

Brandon Lewis: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. It is unacceptable for council tax payers to have to pay that level of increase when there is so much more local authorities can do to save money—and the good ones are already doing it. Yesterday saw the Third Reading of the Local Audit and Accountability Bill, which contains provisions on levies and council tax referendums that will prevent that sort of thing from ever happening again.

John Denham: As the Minister will be aware, it has been said that all the cuts have fallen in the north and not in the south. Does he agree that that is not the case and that the Government have, in fact, been just as vicious in cutting the budgets of the most deprived towns and cities in the south of England as they have in the north, looking after the more prosperous councils wherever they are?

Brandon Lewis: Let me tell the right hon. Gentleman that the Government have produced a settlement that we believe is fair to rural and urban areas, north and south. We are having to make tough decisions—difficult, complicated ones—following the complete financial mess left to us by the last Labour Government.

Therese Coffey: My hon. Friend will be aware that the Government’s getting rid of many regulations has helped councils with the cost of services. I am keen, however, for the Minister to reinforce the message that district councils should pass on the tax grant to parish councils that have a reduced tax base.

Brandon Lewis: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I am pleased that 98% of authorities are already doing that. As we made clear in today’s statement, we expect local authorities to pass that money on to the parish councils. My hon. Friend was quite right about that.

Lilian Greenwood: Does not the Audit Commission’s finding that the most deprived areas have been hit with the biggest cuts show that this Government are on the side of the rich and are quite happy to balance the books on the backs of the poor?

Brandon Lewis: As I have said to other Members, the hon. Lady should look at the total amount. Areas such as Liverpool and Newcastle have a much higher spending power than pretty much anywhere else in the country. Even those areas most affected by the black hole left by the last Labour Government—areas such as Hastings, Great Yarmouth and Pendle, which are doing good work to transform themselves—are being protected with an efficiency support grant, which the last Government never bothered to provide.

Neil Parish: I very much back the rural fair share campaign and I welcome the money that has come forward. Given that it is Christmas, I would have liked it to be a little more generous, but can you outline exactly how much extra you are going to give to rural authorities that you would not have given otherwise?

Mr Speaker: I am giving nothing extra at all, but the Minister might do. We will see.

Brandon Lewis: My hon. Friend has participated in a strong and ongoing campaign with colleagues across the House—including at least one Opposition Front Bencher—about the gap between rural and urban areas. We listened last year and made a one-off payment. This year we have provided increases, which will be rolled into the baseline. My hon. Friend will see that from the figures in the Library.

Gisela Stuart: Birmingham city council’s controllable spend has been cut from £1.2 billion to £400 million. We will have to cut services. Will the Minister tell my constituents whether we should cut school patrols, school libraries or public conveniences?

Brandon Lewis: I would suggest that the hon. Lady use her powers of persuasion to encourage Birmingham city council to do the right thing and, instead of playing political games with its local taxpayers, be more efficient with its back office, and look at how to use its reserves to invest for the future.

Graham Stuart: People living in rural areas earn less on average than people living in urban areas, pay higher council tax and get fewer services, which are more expensive to deliver, yet there is a 50% rural premium or penalty, with 50% more going to urban areas than rural ones. We welcome the rolling of this grant into the general fund, but it will do nothing to close the gap between urban and rural, which cannot be defended.

Brandon Lewis: My hon. Friend has made a passionate and strong case for rural areas throughout the year. That is why we rolled an increased amount into the base. It goes further to narrow the gap. It narrowed last year and narrowed slightly further this year. I am sure that my hon. Friend will be lobbying me on the issue over the next few weeks of consultation procedures.

Dennis Skinner: Now that the Minister, like most of his Tory Front-Bench colleagues, has referred to debts being left behind, is he aware that in Derbyshire, where the Tories lost control last May, they have left behind the biggest mess that Derbyshire county council has ever had to deal with—£151 million in cuts? Is not the truth of the matter that this Tory Government, with their coalition allies, are intent on wrecking the public sector and bringing local government to its knees? That is the policy of this Government, whose massive cuts have mostly been in the Labour-controlled areas.

Brandon Lewis: If we look at what has happened, we find that even the independent report last year showed that the settlement was fair as between north and south, urban and rural—and we would argue that the same applies this year. It is true that, thanks to the mess created by the last Government, we have had to cut back. Local government accounts for a quarter of all public spending, so it has its part to play. The last Labour Chancellor outlined £52 billion-worth of cuts, which the Opposition have not outlined yet, but they have opposed every single change that this Government have made. That is not a credible position, so I take no lectures from the hon. Gentleman. I suggest that he go back to his now Labour-controlled authority and ask it to do what the last Conservative authority was doing, which was managing better so that local taxpayers do not have to be punished by increased council tax. It should freeze its council tax, as the Conservative-led coalition Government have done, and make things better for its local residents.

David Heath: A significant group of authorities, mainly in rural areas, have been historically underfunded. The Government have recognised that, but does the Minister understand that improving the distribution formula does no good whatever if a damping mechanism is then imposed, which removes the benefit?

Brandon Lewis: I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point. Last year, damping was brought in to avoid volatility in the system. We put in extra grant—the money we are rolling in this year—on top of that, so it is not affected by the issue that the hon. Gentleman raised.

Diana Johnson: Can the Minister explain exactly how this is good news for people in Hull, which, although one of the most disadvantaged areas in the country, is experiencing far deeper and more savage cuts than other, wealthier areas?

Brandon Lewis: This is a good settlement for local government generally. Councils’ spending power is being reduced by just 2.9%, and a reduction of 1.8% is predicted for next year. That will ensure that local authorities can
	manage. More important, the Government are putting money—taxpayers’ money—into a council tax freeze for the fourth successive year in order to help hard-working people. I hope that all Labour authorities will follow the example of good Conservative and Liberal Democrat authorities and deliver that freeze to their residents.

Guy Opperman: On 25 November, in the House, I raised the issue of the council tax benefit support grant, which is not being passed on to all the parish councils in Northumberland. On that occasion, my hon. Friend responded by saying that local authorities should be ensuring that that was done. Can he tell me whether he has made any further progress in forcing them to do so?

Brandon Lewis: It is true that a very small number of authorities are not yet passing on the grant, and we are telling them that they should. It is a matter for the authorities themselves, but we made it very clear in today’s written statement that they should be passing the money on to the parish councils.

Mary Glindon: This morning I received a phone call from a representative of North Tyneside council, who was very anxious because the council had not received any confirmation that the details of the settlement were to be issued today. Why were they not issued to my local authority through the normal channels?

Brandon Lewis: Let me gently say to the hon. Lady that they were issued through the normal channels. That is the normal procedure. As for the question of timing, which was raised by the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford). we are a prudent, sensible, fiscal Government. It would have been imprudent to do anything before the autumn statement. Perhaps we take the finances of the country slightly more seriously than the last Government.

Justin Tomlinson: Regrettably, some councils are tempted to increase council tax simply to build their base and their reserves. What measures are the Government taking to reward councils that do the right thing and freeze the tax?

Brandon Lewis: My hon. Friend has made a very good point. Local authorities should indeed be freezing council tax, and we have now adopted a reward-based system. We reward councils that do good work through the new homes bonus, the business rates retention scheme and the innovation fund. All those measures benefit good councils such as my hon. Friend’s in Swindon, which has done some really good innovatory work. The council tax freeze grant is now in the baseline, and there can be no questions, no ifs and no buts: councils should freeze the tax to help hard-working families.

Julie Hilling: Bolton will have lost £100 million since 2010. It is not celebrating, but mourning the services that it is losing, and it is desperately worried about its vulnerable residents. When will the Minister stop blaming the last Government and local authorities, and take responsibility for what he himself is doing?

Brandon Lewis: When they say sorry.

Mark Pawsey: Does the Minister agree that enlightened and far-sighted local authorities such as Rugby borough council anticipated several years ago the tough economic environment in which we now find ourselves, and started to put their houses in order at an early stage by taking a hard look at all their items of expenditure?

Brandon Lewis: I do agree with my hon. Friend. There are very good councils all over the country which have been streamlining their bureaucracy and administration, sharing management, sharing services, improving their procurement practices, and delivering great front-line services to their residents. They should be warmly thanked for doing great work while also playing an important role in lowering the country’s deficit.

Jack Dromey: Birmingham is reeling from the biggest cuts in local government history, totalling £840 million, and the other core cities have also been particularly hard hit. Common to all the cuts has been a grotesquely unfair approach. Why has Birmingham been hit twice as hard as the national average, and why is every citizen in high-need, high-unemployment Birmingham losing £149 of local government services while in leafy, low-need, low-unemployment Wokingham the figure is only £19?

Brandon Lewis: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the starting model, he will see that Wokingham had rather less spending power per dwelling than Birmingham in the first place.

Andrew George: The Minister accepted in his statement that rural areas were being comparatively funded, but I am sorry to say that, once again, the adjustment in the settlement is chicken feed when it comes to addressing the inequality between rural and urban areas. Does the Minister not realise that, at this rate, it will take more than 1,000 years to put that right?

Brandon Lewis: We have actually increased last year’s amount. We have put it into the baseline. I appreciate the point made by Members about the need to narrow the gap between rural and urban areas, but they should appreciate that we are acting against the backdrop of the financial mess in which we were left by the last Government and with which we now have to deal. Obviously, that somewhat restricts our room for manoeuvre.

Sheila Gilmore: Is the Minister aware, or willing to admit, that a council tax freeze is a very regressive measure? Those who did not pay previously receive nothing back, and the higher people’s council tax band, the more they gain. We in Scotland have had a great deal of experience of that regressive tax policy over nearly seven years.

Brandon Lewis: I am not sure whether the hon. Lady is arguing that councils should increase the tax, but that is certainly not something that we would support. We think that freezing council tax in order to make families several hundred pounds a year better off is a good thing to do for hard-working families.

Andrew Stephenson: I thank the Minister for taking the time to visit Pendle and meet the council’s leader, Joe Cooney, and its chief executive, and for meeting them again when they came to London recently.
	Will he join me in congratulating councils such as Pendle, which has already made significant savings by, for instance, reducing by 35% the disgraceful number of properties in the borough that were left empty by the last Labour Government?

Brandon Lewis: It was a pleasure to meet Joe, the leader of Pendle borough council, a couple of weeks ago, when I met a number of council leaders. Pendle is a fine example of a small authority that has worked hard to make really good savings while protecting front-line services. I congratulate that council, and other councils that are taking similar measures, on their excellent work.

Alison Seabeck: Plymouth city council has won awards under different administrations. Over the past five years it has cut its back-room staff, innovated, and, sadly, laid off staff. Now it is telling us that it will not have enough money to fulfil its statutory duties over the three-year period, which is not acceptable. Will the Minister please tell us what the council is supposed to do when it is being encouraged to freeze council tax, which is a wholly regressive measure?

Brandon Lewis: If the council freezes the tax, which would be good for its residents, it will receive a support grant from the Government. If it is looking for ideas in order to do more than it has already done, I am sure that the Local Government Association will be happy to help. It could probably learn a lesson or two from Hammersmith and Fulham, which has some good ideas that would help it to cut its tax for local residents.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: What an assortment of riches! I call Mr John Stevenson.

John Stevenson: Cumbria has six district councils and one county council for half a million people. Many Cumbrians believe that the councils should merge in order to save money and improve local services. Were the councils to make such an approach to the Government, would it be favourably received?

Brandon Lewis: As my hon. Friend knows, we are not fans of top-down reorganisation in local government, unlike the last Administration. However, I am very supportive of any local authorities that join forces to find new and innovative ways of saving back-office costs, and I shall always be happy to meet their members and discuss what is achievable for them.

Helen Jones: If the Minister believes in fairness, can he explain why West Oxfordshire, one of the richest local authorities in the country, will gain from the settlement, while, according to the Audit Commission, the most deprived areas in the country will lose from it? Are not the Government pursuing a systematic policy, in local government, health and taxation, of transferring money from the poorest areas to the richest?

Brandon Lewis: The hon. Lady’s argument falls completely flat for a couple of reasons. First, we are helping the hardest-hit councils, such as Pendle, Hastings, Great Yarmouth and Hyndburn, whereas the last Government left them with a black hole to fall into in
	2010. Secondly, the hon. Lady is living in the past, because this year the Government adopted a reward-based system which enables local authorities to increase their income through the business rates retention scheme and the new homes bonus. Councils that do good things such as building houses and securing economic growth will experience the benefits of that.

Stephen Mosley: Like all local authorities, Cheshire West and Chester council has had to tighten its belt in recent years. By cutting waste and sharing services, it has managed to keep council tax increases down while improving local services. Does my hon. Friend agree that if a local authority makes itself more efficient, it can make itself more effective too?

Brandon Lewis: My hon. Friend makes a good point in naming one of the local authorities that has done great work in proving that the efficiencies deliver not only savings but, more importantly, better services for their residents. I encourage other authorities to look at those good councils and the great work that they are doing through the community budget programme and the transformation network to become more efficient and effective for their residents.

Stephen McCabe: I am sure that the Minister must have used a public library as a young man. Is he at all worried that community libraries could all but disappear as this squeeze on non-essential council services continues to grow?

Brandon Lewis: I suggest that, if the hon. Gentleman looks around the country, he will also find local authorities that are opening new libraries, where they think that they are right for their area. As I have said to other Members, I urge him to use his powers of persuasion to get his authority to make the savings in the most efficient way possible, and to look at back-office functions, at fraud, at its reserves and at its council tax collection procedures in order to protect front-line services, rather than playing politics with people’s money.

John Pugh: The Minister says that the average cut in spending power is 2.9%, but spending power is a rather slippery concept. What is the average cut in formula grant, and how does that vary by type of authority?

Brandon Lewis: As I said to the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), the reason that we use spending power is not only because local government has talked to us about using it but because it gives the whole picture of spending power in a local area, rather than just the grant. That is what impacts on the services that residents get, and that is what matters to people.

Chris Williamson: Derby city council is already reeling from the unprecedented cuts that have been imposed by this Government since they came to power, yet under this settlement it will have to find another £81 million of cuts from its budget, and it will soon be unable to fund even its statutory obligations. Will the Minister advise the council on which statutory services it should cut? Should it cut services for vulnerable
	children, or services for vulnerable elderly people? It will not have the resources to fulfil all its statutory obligations.

Brandon Lewis: The hon. Gentleman highlights part of the problem for some local authorities. First, I want to thank him for being one of the great advocates of spending power, and I am sure that he will thank us for ensuring that we make it clear why that matters to people in terms of the services they get. He was right about that, and we have listened and put that formula forward. I know that, if his local authority is playing political games with people’s money, he will want to fight for his local residents and go back to his authority and tell it to think again. If the councillors and officers cannot make the right decisions to look after their local residents, they should step aside and get somebody in who can.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: The hon. Member for Reading East (Mr Wilson) has only just started bobbing, but I am assuming that he was here at the start.

Rob Wilson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Labour councils such as Reading are again increasing the burden of council tax on families this year. Does the Minister agree that, during these challenging times, any rise in council tax should be put to a local authority referendum?

Brandon Lewis: My hon. Friend makes a good point. This Conservative coalition Government have done what they can to ensure that a council tax freeze is available to every resident in the country, and we are proud of that. Any authority that is looking to put up its council tax and to penalise local residents by charging them more should have the courage to hold a referendum and let the public decide.

Catherine McKinnell: The Minister knows that quoting spending power levels completely ignores the different challenges that areas such as Newcastle and Liverpool are facing. On the new homes bonus, will he explain the fairness of the north-east contributing £42.3 million to the pot while receiving only £29.3 million in return?

Brandon Lewis: Actually, the spending power formula goes in completely the opposite direction, in that it represents exactly what affects residents. Calculating spending power per dwelling takes account of the entire pot of money in a local authority area. The hon. Lady is quite right to say that Newcastle has a spending power of almost £2,500 a head compared with other areas that have closer to £1,500. The formula does reflect need. With the new homes bonus, the more houses people build, the more money they will get.

Barry Gardiner: The Minister knows that my borough of Brent has one of the highest levels of deprivation. The leader of the council, Muhammed Butt, has engaged with the programme of shared services and sought to drive efficiencies through, despite more than £100 million of cuts, but the time is now fast approaching when the authority will be able to fund
	only its statutory service obligations. What does that say about the view of the Minister’s Department on localism?

Brandon Lewis: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman’s local authority will want to come to talk to me during the consultation process. If it looks at authorities such as Hammersmith and Fulham—and, indeed, the whole tri-borough area—it will see the hundreds of millions of pounds-worth of savings that can be made to ensure that it provides great front-line services.

Steve Rotheram: It is farcical for the Minister to try to spin this as a good day for local government. There will certainly be no parties in the city of Liverpool today. We are struggling to meet our statutory duties, after the 62% cut that this Government have imposed on us, and there are no discretionary pots left. If the Minister and his Secretary of State do not believe me, I will offer them a first-class ticket to come to Liverpool and look at the books, and ask them to tell us where they believe we can cut further.

Brandon Lewis: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s offer, but we do not tend to travel first class in our Department. We protect the taxpayer’s money. I have met the mayor of Liverpool, and obviously—

Steve Rotheram: I will pay for it.

Mr Speaker: Order. The financial generosity of the hon. Gentleman is duly noted, but it is somewhat unparliamentary for him to chunter from a sedentary position—[Interruption.] Order. His point has been heard—[Interruption.] Order. I was being good-humoured towards the hon. Gentleman, but I am sorry that he is not showing good humour in the festive season. [Interruption.] Order. I am not debating the point with the hon. Gentleman; I am simply telling him what the situation is. He has asked his question, and he must now have the courtesy to listen to the response. He can make his own evaluation of that response, of course.

Brandon Lewis: I am sure that the mayor of Liverpool will want to talk to us and make his case during the consultation procedure. I met representatives of the core cities last year, and I am happy to meet any individuals. I must also point out to the hon. Gentleman that Liverpool gets one of the highest amounts of spending power per dwelling in the country and that, on top of that, it gets regional growth fund money, growing places fund money and a city deal, all of which are helping Liverpool to be the town that it should be.

Jim Cunningham: The Minister’s justifications for inflicting cuts on local government sound like something that we would expect to hear from the North Korean regime. When Ministers start talking about cutting back-room staff, we know right away that they have no answers. More importantly, Coventry will have to find between 15% and 20% cuts over the next three years. Translated one way, that means more than 1,000 jobs. Translated another way, it means that we would have to find £48 million.

Mr Speaker: I have to say politely to the hon. Gentleman that I have struggled to find the question mark at the end of his observation. Perhaps he was asking a
	rhetorical question. If the Minister wants to reply, he is welcome to do so, but he is under no obligation. No? Fair enough.

Nicholas Dakin: The Minister says that this is a really good day for local government, following previous good settlements. Will he explain why 64 Conservative councils have refused the offer of a freeze and are putting up their council tax?

Brandon Lewis: The hon. Gentleman must be a bit of a mind reader or a fortune teller, because councils will not set their council tax for another month or two. We will have to wait and see what happens. I say to all local authorities, whatever their colour and political party, that they should be freezing their council tax to protect their local residents. If they are not sure where they can find more savings, I suggest that they look at good councils such as Vale of White Horse in Oxfordshire, High Peak and Staffordshire Moorlands, which are saving up to 18% in back-office costs by sharing management and chief executives.

Andrew Miller: In his answer to the original question, the Minister expressed pride. In his answer to the hon. Member for City of Chester (Stephen Mosley), he praised that Tory-controlled council. Is he proud of the fact that that council is closing women’s refuges?

Brandon Lewis: It is up to local residents to take a view on those local services. I say to the hon. Gentleman and to all Members in that area that, if the local authority is making decisions they do not like, they should lobby the authority to get it to do what they think is the right thing. I have to say that, when I have visited that area, I have found the residents to be very happy with the services. Some great work is being done there on shared services and shared management with Manchester, on freezing the council tax and on troubled families, to ensure that people are getting great services and improved services in that area.

Jonathan Reynolds: There is no doubt that, either by accident or design, this Government have redistributed money from poorer areas towards the more affluent ones. Let me give the Minister an example relating to the new homes bonus. The bonus excess each year is financed by the redistribution of the formula grant. Because of the collapse in housing completions that this Government have presided over—in Greater Manchester, that involves about a third of the homes that we had been planning for—there has been a redistributional effect away from areas that really need the funds and towards London and the south-east. That funding imbalance then goes into the local enterprise partnerships and the local growth funds that the Government believe should drive prosperity in local economies. Surely the Minister knows the impact of his own policies on councils up and down the country.

Brandon Lewis: The new homes bonus is fairly simple: you build more houses, you get more money.

Andrew Gwynne: The Minister must surely be aware that many local authorities have already committed significant reserves to meeting
	additional equal pay requirements, especially as a result of the Birmingham ruling. That money cannot be spent twice, so will he cover those additional costs, should they arise, if those councils take his advice and spend the reserves on front-line services?

Brandon Lewis: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the Birmingham case, he will find that we have been helpful to Birmingham, particularly with capitalisation. It would have been better, however, if that authority had made decisions earlier for good financial planning.

Steve Reed: The level of total spending power is central to the local government settlement, so can the Minister explain here and now how the 2.3% cut in local government spending power that the Secretary of State announced in June turned into a 15% cut for most London boroughs once the detail came through?

Brandon Lewis: That is simply not true; we have got a protection in there. This year, it is even better than last year, so even the biggest cut in the country is only 6.9%.

Point of Order

Michael Connarty: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Possibly in anticipation of the fact that I had a question today on the post office network, I received a message—it was not in my e-mail and I could not find it on my computer; it came through my mobile device—from the Minister with responsibility for postal services, the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson). It said that it was going to all MPs and explained that she was having to put £640 million extra into the network reorganisation fund, on top of the £1.34 billion that was already there. My point of order relates to the fact that this did not come through my computer and it was not in today’s written statement from BIS. If she is going to give a statement like that telling all MPs about a massive spending increase because of a shortfall and the failure of her policies, which are destroying the post office network, is she not obliged to do so in a formal written statement or here at the Dispatch Box?

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. Certainly it would be incumbent on the Minister to find a way of disseminating that information to Members of the House other than by purely electronic means. If that did not happen, I understand that there may be some disappointment on that front. It is not something I can pursue further today, but in response to his inquiry I think I have put the point clearly on the record as to what ordinarily is expected. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is gesticulating from a sedentary position—some people are never satisfied. The inquiry has been made, the answer has been given and that is the end of the situation.

ROYAL ASSENT

Mr Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
	Energy Act 2013
	Financial Services (Banking Reform) Act 2013
	London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2013
	Humber Bridge Act 2013
	City of London (Various Powers) Act 2013.

Credit Union (Armed Forces)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Gareth Thomas: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the establishment of a credit union for members of the armed forces and family members who live in the same household; and for connected purposes.
	The Bill is designed to ensure that our soldiers, sailors and Air Force personnel on lower incomes have access to low-cost loans and other low-cost financial services and, as a result, are not vulnerable to high-interest payday loan businesses. I should declare at the outset that I am a member of my local credit union, M for Money, which serves my constituency in Harrow, and also of the Rainbow Saver credit union.
	Credit unions are financial co-operatives. They are one powerful demonstration of how through pooling our efforts and through co-operation with others, we can each become better off. Those of us who champion credit unions have always believed that what makes them different from other financial services providers is not just the lower interest rates they offer, but their mission to operate for the benefit of their communities, to retain money in local economies and to empower people, especially those often unable to access credit elsewhere. Key to credit unions is a common bond between the members, who in turn are the investors and consumers—indeed, they can also serve as directors. It is, in essence, about people in the same community looking out for each other but benefiting directly themselves from a service that they are able to provide together.
	As many in this House will recognise, many successful credit unions are already operating in the UK: the police credit union has 21,000 members, has been going for 10 years and has Lord Stevens, the former head of the Metropolitan police, as its president; the former British Airways credit union, which is now known as Plane Saver and covers more than just British Airways, has more than 7,500 staff as members; and the London mutual credit union, with its origins in Southwark, has more than 15,000 member owners, and offers competitive online and affordable payday loan services. For a 30-day, £400 payday loan, the LMCU charges, typically, an interest rate of 27%, or £19. For the same loan, a commercial payday loan company might charge an annual percentage rate of 5,600%, or £127. In short, it might be £108 more expensive for the same amount over the same period. That shows the kind of service that should specifically be available to our servicemen and women, and their families: a low-cost credit union. Only a credit union—a financial co-operative—would be able to offer such a service.
	My Bill specifically draws inspiration from the biggest and most successful credit union in the world. A rear-admiral of the US navy and former commander of the American enterprise battle group is probably not the most obvious enthusiast for financial co-operatives, yet Rear-Admiral Cutler Dawson is president and chief executive officer of Navy Federal, the world’s largest credit union. It is based in the United States and serves all Department of Defence and Coast Guard active
	duty, civilian and contractor personnel, and their families. Rear-Admiral Dawson previously served in the United States navy for some 34 years.
	Navy Federal was founded by its members in 1933, when soldiers returning from war were unable to access affordable credit. It now offers a service to US special forces, navy cooks, veterans and the families of servicemen and women. In the US, payday lenders used to target military bases, trying to hook American sailors and soldiers with their high-cost financial services, yet Navy Federal is able to offer some of the most highly competitive financial services in the US market. Indeed, Navy Federal now holds some $55 billion in assets, and has some 4 million members, 235 branches around the world and a work force of more than 11,000 employees. Surely our soldiers, sailors, airmen and women, and their families, could benefit from a similar credit union.
	My Bill aims to address the growing fears that low-paid service personnel are having to turn to payday loan companies to get through the last week of each month. Research by the Royal British Legion found that about a third of veterans, including almost half of the recently injured, experience financial difficulties, leading many into unaffordable levels of debt. The RBL’s dedicated benefits and money advice service helped some 2,500 people in its first year, 2007, but last year that figure rose to more than 11,000 Army personnel being helped out, and the RBL predicts that the figure will keep rising.
	We know from the Debt Advice Foundation that one in four people who take out payday loans need the money to buy food or essentials, with 44% using them to pay off other debts. Similarly, Citizens Advice research has shown a fourfold rise in just two years in the number of people coming to their citizens advice bureau with debt problems as a result of taking out payday loans. I have spoken to the chief executives of many citizens advice bureaux located close to military bases and I have heard about some of our soldiers and sailors who are facing real financial difficulties. One serving Army soldier who was living in MOD accommodation with his wife and children had two payday loans, one for £435 and one for £375, both due for payment at the beginning of the month. If he failed to repay the loans in full, he incurred an £80 charge for deferring them. He was in a vicious circle. If he repaid the loans, he was left without sufficient funds to finance his monthly expenditure and again had to take out a payday loan to manage until the end of the month.
	It is a story that many of us will have heard time and again in our own constituency surgeries—a small loan that, through huge interest rates, gets bigger and bigger. Of course it is true that families across the UK are feeling the pinch, and we need a major expansion in the promotion of and access to credit unions across the UK. A levy on the profits of the payday lenders could help to drive that expansion of low-cost financial services that credit unions offer. I hope the House will recognise that serving personnel and veterans face particular challenges. Surely it is time to inject new energy into the credit union market and take the steps necessary to address this particular problem for our soldiers and sailors.
	I must give some credit to the Government. There has been some interest in this matter from the Ministry of Defence, but I say gently that it is at best tentative. Ministers need to show more enthusiasm and energy for
	this most basic of services that our troops should be able to expect. When US soldiers, sailors and marines are on active service duty, they can focus on their day job without worrying about their financial affairs at home. The British armed forces surely deserve the same support. I commend this Bill to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.

Mr Speaker: Who will prepare and bring in the Bill?

Gareth Thomas: Apart from the first one, they are a talented and handsome lot, Mr. Speaker.

Mr Speaker: Usually we are content with a factual list, rather than a Member putting a divisible proposition to the House, but we will manage; it is Christmas.
	Ordered,
	That Mr Gareth Thomas, Mr Andrew Love, Meg Hillier, Stella Creasy, Mrs Louise Ellman, Seema Malhotra, Mr Adrian Bailey, Stephen Twigg, Tom Greatrex, Stephen Doughty, Mr Ian Davidson and Mr Steve Reed present the Bill.
	Mr Gareth Thomas accordingly presented the Bill.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 28 February 2014, and to be printed (Bill 148).

Opposition Day
	 — 
	[15th Allotted Day]
	 — 
	Accident and Emergency

Andy Burnham: I beg to move,
	That this House is concerned about recent Government statements on Accident and Emergency (A&E) and Government claims that it is not in crisis; notes that last week, 79 A&Es and the NHS overall missed the Government’s A&E target; further notes that attendances at hospital A&Es have increased three times faster since 2009-10 than in the period from 2004-05 to 2009-10, and that in the last 12 months more than one million people have waited more than four hours; believes there are a range of reasons for the current pressure on Accident and Emergency but that difficulty in accessing GP services is one of the primary causes; regrets the Government’s decision to cut funding for evening and weekend GP opening and scrap the guarantee of a GP appointment within 48 hours; and, to ease the pressure in Accident and Emergency, calls on the Government to reverse for winter 2013 its scrapping of the 48-hour appointment guarantee.
	As we approach the end of 2013, it is becoming clear that this has been the worst year in accident and emergency for at least a decade. All year, the pressure has been relentless. It is not just a winter crisis, but a spring, summer and autumn crisis. Across the 12 months, more than 1 million people have waited more than four hours to be seen, which is a threefold increase since 2010. For the past 22 weeks, hospital accident and emergency departments have missed this Government’s target. Last week, the target was missed by the NHS as a whole, which is a warning sign that winter has now arrived and things are getting even worse.
	Accident and emergency is the barometer of the whole health and care system. All year, that barometer has been warning us of severe storms ahead, and yet, three weeks ago, the Secretary of State stood at that Dispatch Box and claimed that this was
	“a crisis that is not happening”.—[Official Report, 26 November 2013; Vol. 571, c. 155.]
	He should try telling that to the families of people left waiting for hours on trolleys in corridors; to the people who have been ferried to hospital in police cars and taxis because ambulances are trapped in queues at accident and emergency; and to the A and E sister who attended our A and E summit here in Parliament last week and said:
	“It feels like we’re fire fighting. It’s crisis management.”

David Wright: Is this problem not compounded by the fact that in many places such as Telford and Wrekin and the wider Shropshire area, the future of full A and E services at many hospitals is in doubt? That situation is bad for morale, and it compounds the other problems such as waiting times. People want some reassurance about the future of their A and E services.

Andy Burnham: That is a question for the Secretary of State. How can it make sense to close so many A and E departments in the middle of an A and E crisis? This year, the facts on the ground have changed. As I have said, it has been the worst year for a decade. Any proposal to change A and E in areas such as that of my
	hon. Friend needs to be considered in the light of that new evidence. We need to consider whether it is safe to proceed. As the A and E sister said, it is crisis management. That is the view from the real world. In here, it is a different story. It is, “Crisis, what crisis?”
	My purpose in holding this debate is to cut through the spin. I want to bring into our debate today the voices of those A and E nurses, occupational therapists, paramedics, community nurses, and NHS 111 staff and mental health professionals who came to our summit. For instance, there is the paramedic who told us of his worries about ambulance response times getting longer because ambulances are trapped at A and E; and of the time when a patient who was held a long time at the door of a busy A and E suffered a heart attack and had to be rushed back to the ambulance. Another paramedic told us about being at the scene of a serious incident in a city centre. After calling for back-up, he was joined by a private ambulance which did not appear to have adequately trained staff to take patients to hospital. A community nurse spoke of her frustration at spending an hour and a half on the phone trying to get a GP appointment for a frail patient. An A and E-based occupational therapist said that she was now regularly diagnosing dementia for the first time in older patients who had ended up in A and E. Surely we can do better than that.

Grahame Morris: My right hon. Friend is giving an excellent argument as to why we are in this crisis. Is it not completely predictable given the response that we have just had on the local government grant settlement? Increased pressures on the system will be felt by old people and in deprived areas.

Andy Burnham: I agree. The Government have made grave mistakes. I warned them—they misquote me every week—that it would be irresponsible to give increases to the NHS, which is what they were promising, if they had to ransack local government, particularly social care budgets, to pay for them. That is a false economy. It means that older people have support withdrawn from the home, and they drift towards A and E in ever greater numbers. That is what is happening today on this Secretary of State’s watch.

Steve Rotheram: Given that we have just heard that Liverpool will face 62% reductions in local government settlements, does my right hon. Friend agree that the obvious consequence will be to put additional pressures on A and E in Liverpool hospitals?

Andy Burnham: The Government are tearing up the social fabric of England’s most deprived city. This is a city in which people struggle to feed their kids and to make ends meet. Council services are utterly crucial in helping people to cope. The Government do not understand, or they do not care, and they just rip up the fabric of an entire city. It is disgraceful.

Caroline Lucas: Does the right hon. Gentleman share my concern about the impact of the fines that are being levied as a result of delays in ambulance handovers? Many hard-working
	staff at the Brighton hospital say they are incredibly demoralising because they punish A and E for a problem that is actually hospital-wide, and it is hospital-wide because of cuts to the national tariff and because of the top-down reorganisation that nobody wants and that is hugely costly.

Andy Burnham: As the hon. Lady says, ambulance services and A and E are often now not working well together. I mentioned the paramedic held at the door, and we are hearing of queues at A and E. What we cannot have are perverse incentives in the system. The Secretary of State needs to look at the issue that she raises.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Andy Burnham: I will make some progress because I am conscious that many Members want to speak in both debates.
	The picture that emerged from our summit was of a health service on the edge, creaking at the seams, with corners being cut and A and E as the last resort for people failed by other services—people who, in an ideal world, ought not to have been there. We heard of people with severe mental health problems in A and E because of a lack of crisis beds, people with severe dental pain who could not afford treatment, disorientated older people with dementia and, perhaps saddest of all, palliative patients in A and E waiting areas.
	It is clear that the cost of living crisis and this Government’s failure to support people through it might also be driving people to A and E. The House is soon to debate the scourge of food poverty that now blights our land. Food banks are growing at an exponential rate. Indeed, we now read that it is Government policy to ask councils to set up more, even though they have just cut the funding of the councils with the most food banks. It is unbelievable. It suggests to me that they expect food poverty to be with us for some time to come and have no real intention of tackling it. People will go on having to choose between eating properly and putting the heating on—[Interruption.] The Secretary of State chunters, but he has no idea what it is like to do that, has he?
	People are making other impossible choices that might damage their health. I am told of the growing number of people now taking prescription medicines on an empty stomach because they cannot afford to eat properly. Dr Ellie Cannon, a GP who also writes for The Mail on Sunday, recently tweeted:
	“I’m sad to say that at my NHS practice if we have a patient who has unexplained symptoms, we have started asking if they can afford to eat”.
	How can that possibly be right in England in 2013? Has the Secretary of State considered reviewing the effect on people’s health of the growing problem of food poverty and has he discussed the effects of benefits policy on people’s health with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions? If he has not, I suggest that he does so immediately.

Barry Gardiner: As my right hon. Friend is talking about general practitioners, does he agree that the Government’s failure to honour the guarantee that we gave that people could see a GP within 48 hours means that more and more people are going directly to A and E?

Andy Burnham: That is the central point of my speech: the removal of the guarantee that patients could get an appointment within two working days. The Government removed it in June 2010 and, as a result, we all hear stories, do we not, of people saying that they are getting up and ringing the surgery at 8 or 9 o’clock in the morning and are being told that there is nothing available for days. That is a result of the Government’s decision to remove the two-day guarantee. That is why people are facing that frustration. I shall explain that in more detail—[Interruption.] Government Members say that the guarantee did not work, but in 2005 nine out of 10 people said that they could get an appointment within two days. Have those Members checked the figures recently? There is falling satisfaction with GP services and it is happening on their watch.
	I asked the Secretary of State whether he had spoken to the Work and Pensions Secretary, and he needs to do so urgently. The truth is that pressure has been growing all year on A and E and he has been ignoring the warnings, sticking to his usual line of blaming everyone else. His original line was to blame the 2004 GP contract, but that was undermined by the Chair of the Select Committee on Health and the inconvenient fact that there was no winter crisis in 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 or, indeed, 2009.
	Having seen his original spin dismissed, the Secretary of State changed tack. In a message to NHS staff on 6 December he said:
	“Our ageing society has meant 1.2 million more people in A&E every year compared to 3 years ago”.
	Finally we have an admission that the pressure has built on his watch, but as ever, it is nothing to do with the Government. It is nothing to do with the break-up of NHS Direct and its replacement with the disastrous NHS 111, nothing to do with the closure of a quarter of NHS walk-in centres, nothing to do with the severe cuts to social care and the removal of home care from vulnerable people, nothing to do with the loss of 6,000 nursing jobs and nothing to do with the reorganisation that no one wanted and no one voted for that threw the entire NHS into chaos just when it needed stability and that has led to precious NHS money being spent on redundancy payments only for those people to be re-employed by new NHS bodies. No, it is now all the fault of the ageing society. You could not make it up, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Margaret Ritchie: My right hon. Friend is making a compelling case about the problems in accident and emergency. Is he aware that they extend to Northern Ireland? Although devolved arrangements are responsible, we are told that the problems are down to the shortage of doctors, which emanates from Whitehall and the Department of Health. It is no longer a compulsory part of GP training for doctors to do a component in A and E and that is causing a problem.

Andy Burnham: I mentioned the reorganisation, through which we saw the complete disruption of training arrangements in the NHS. The Government’s eye was taken completely off the ball of the growing problem of recruitment, not just of GPs but of A and E doctors. That is a real problem around the country. We now have fewer GPs per 1,000 of population than we had a few years ago, so my hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise that issue.
	The new spin is that the Secretary of State admits that A and E has got worse on the Government’s watch, but it is not his fault and it is not a crisis. That is the public line, at least. In private, it is a different story. This is the Secretary of State who has taken up ringing hospital chief executives who are not meeting their A and E targets. I have heard from two senior sources that the Secretary of State has discussed within government whether Cobra should be convened to discuss the A and E crisis. Can he confirm or deny whether that is the case? I have no way of knowing, but he needs to give a straight answer.
	The longer we see the Secretary of State in this job, the more familiar we become with his style: spin before substance. That is the real danger when someone holds a job as important as his. If they use spin to distract people from the real causes of the problems, they end up neglecting those problems and precious time is lost.

Therese Coffey: I know that the right hon. Gentleman is passionate about the NHS, but he seems to ignore the history. In the last year of the Labour Government, the average wait in A and E was 77 minutes. It is now 33. The Labour-run Welsh NHS has missed every target since 2009. Frankly, I am proud that our Government are putting the patient at the heart of the NHS by tackling the issues in hospitals and in our ambulance services.

Andy Burnham: Last week, the NHS missed its A and E target—the hon. Lady’s A and E target—which is a lowered target. If she is going to maintain that complacency through the winter, I suggest that it might well backfire on her.

Gareth Thomas: My right hon. Friend’s description of rising waiting times in A and E and ambulances queuing outside A and E will be recognisable to my constituents who use Northwick Park hospital. What is his view of the Government’s proposed new funding formula, which, I hear, might mean that £20 million will be cut from Harrow’s NHS budget?

Andy Burnham: Since the change of Government, the previous Secretary of State and this one have talked about a formula based predominantly on need, not deprivation. The worrying thing about that is that it means that we have a formula based on the use of NHS services as opposed to the need to improve health. NHS England has been debating that issue this week and I hope that it has taken heed of what has been said in this House, because to do this to the NHS alongside the local government cuts mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) will be catastrophic for the communities in this country with the greatest need.

David Lammy: Does my right hon. Friend recognise the perversity of our having a debate about airport expansion, with the London population rising to 10 million, while at the same time closing A and Es in west London, experiencing problems at St Helier in south London, closing Chase Farm and making changes in the east? Does that make sense with a rising population? Will it not lead to chaos?

Andy Burnham: The Secretary of State really needs to answer for the cuts to London’s A and E departments, particularly at a time of unprecedented pressure, and for the desire to bring forward closures supported by a financial case, rather than a clinical one, as in Lewisham.
	I want to set the record straight about the 2004 contract and dismiss the myths that have been put about. The fact is that it gave the public much quicker and more convenient access to GPs and relieved the pressure on A and E. Let me explain the changes it made. First, it created the ability to add an incentive to allow patients to book an appointment several days ahead. Members might recall Tony Blair being challenged on that very point during a live TV debate before the 2005 general election. As a result, he brought forward a new measure to give people that ability to plan ahead. Secondly, it created incentives for GPs to offer evening and weekend opening. Thirdly, it allowed the previous Government to offer people a new guarantee of a GP appointment within two working days. And it worked. In 1997 only half of patients could get an appointment within 48 hours, but by 2005 nine out of 10 patients could do so. As a result, A and E was performing much better than it had been in 1997.
	What has happened since? This Government have scrapped all those measures to improve patient access and convenience. They removed the right set out in the NHS constitution to an appointment within two days, stating that it was no longer a priority. It might not be a priority for them, but let me tell them that it remains a high priority for my constituents and those of my hon. Friends. This is the simple truth that they do not like to admit: it has got harder to get a GP appointment under this Prime Minister and this Government. People who call their surgery early in the morning only to be told that nothing is available now know why.
	There are now 854 fewer GP practices in England offering evening and weekend openings than there were in July 2009. The Patients Association has found that six out of 10 people said they could not see a GP for at least two days and four out of 10 said they could not book an appointment for at least two days in advance. All that is leading to some people turning straight to A and E and others getting sicker while they wait and then arriving in A and E as a more serious case.
	The Government have tried to blame GPs for the problem, but that is unfair, because this Government have cut the funding for general practice, cut the funding for delivering better patient access and convenience and, I have already said, cut the number of GPs per thousand of the population. The analysis could not be clearer. The question is where do we go from here.
	The House has got used to the Secretary of State’s stock speech, which takes no responsibility for what is happening now in the NHS and seeks to blame the previous Government for everything that is going wrong. Well I have news for him: that will not work today. A and E is getting worse on his watch. He has presided over the worst year in A and E for a decade. People need an honest assessment of the situation, and of the urgency and the NHS’s ability to cope this winter. Does he accept that there is a crisis in A and E? He has gone quiet, but we will hear from him in a moment. Or does he still maintain that it is not happening? We need to know.
	With January just around the corner, people want practical answers to straight questions and some proposals to make things better. First, will he consider making urgent changes to NHS 111 and putting nurses and clinicians back on the other end of the phone line? Evidence from across the NHS tells us that the cut-price model of call handlers with computer algorithms simply does not work. Too often the computer says, “Call an ambulance or go to A and E.” The sensible change back to an NHS Direct-style system was recommended by Sir Bruce Keogh in his report and should be made right now ahead of the winter.
	Secondly—this is the centrepiece of what I want to say today—given the evidence to show that the 48-hour guarantee worked to divert people from A and E, there is a clear case for reintroducing it this winter. It is true that GPs might not be so keen on it, but it was valued by patients, and that is the most important thing. The Secretary of State needs to listen to what people are saying about their difficulties in getting an appointment in office hours, not in out-of-office hours. He must do something to address that. Will he divert some of the funding that he has made available to meet A and E pressures to that purpose, or indeed will he reclaim some of the funding he has handed back to the Treasury? It is so important that people can get appointments when they need them.
	Those are two practical suggestions that I hope the Government will consider and accept. If the Secretary of State will not accept them, he needs to put forward other suggestions of his own to help people get access to good advice via a GP or over the phone and to avoid A and E this winter. If he refuses to do that, is he really saying that everything possible has been done to ensure that things do not get worse in the months ahead?
	In conclusion, the NHS today stands on the brink of its most dangerous winter in years. It is a serious situation and people are looking for straight answers from the Secretary of State. It has got harder to get a GP appointment on his watch and people want to know what he is going to do about it. A and E is getting worse and worse on his watch and people want to know how he plans to turn things around and ensure that all A and E departments and ambulance services can get safely through the winter. He now needs to put away his stock speech, cut the spin and get a grip, and fast.

Jeremy Hunt: What we have heard today is a deeply unconvincing attempt by the Opposition to turn A and E into a political football. As a former Health Secretary who missed his own target for 14 of the 26 weeks that covered winter, the shadow Secretary of State should know better than to run down the phenomenal achievements of hard-working NHS staff at this busy time of year.
	The right hon. Gentleman threw out numerous statistics—[Interruption.] He asked me to give him some answers, so he should just listen. He threw out numerous statistics, but let us look at the facts he chose not to mention. First, given that A and E departments across the United Kingdom face similar demographic challenges and have similar structures and targets, a comparison with Wales is instructive, not least because,
	with a Labour-run Government, it is following policies that are closer to those that he favours. The most recent full-month data available for both countries show that England hit the target, with 95.7%, but Wales missed it, with 90.4 %. Last year, England hit the target, with 95.9%, but Wales missed it, with 87.7%. In fact, Wales has missed it every single year since 2009. He also talked about ambulance times. In October, the figure for England was 74.6%, and for Wales 65.2%.
	The right hon. Gentleman used some strong language. He talked about complacency and crisis. Will he now demonstrate that those comments were not shallow point scoring by making the same criticisms of Labour in Wales? If not, the House will see those comments for what they are: a hollow attempt to turn an operational challenge—one that he faced, that I face, and indeed that all Health Secretaries face—into a political argument regardless of the impact on patients or staff. Vulnerable people are relying on our emergency services this winter, so to whip up fear and run down performance, as he has done, is frankly shameful. It is putting politics before patients, and not for the first time from the Opposition Benches.
	If the right hon. Gentleman does not want to talk about Wales—[Interruption.] I will move on to that later. If he does not want to talk about Wales, let us look more closely at England. Again, the statistics he did not want to share with the House show that NHS A and E departments are actually performing much better than when he was Health Secretary.

Guy Opperman: Does the Secretary of State welcome the example being shown by the award-winning Northumbria NHS Trust, which is building a brand-new specialist emergency care hospital in these difficult times, offering 24-hour cover seven days a week with consultants? That idea preceded the Keogh review and shows the way forward that A and E should be taking.

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Huge progress is being made on the ground to deal with the challenges, and under a lot of pressure, and that is why we need to use language responsibly, rather than using the kind of hyperbole we have heard this afternoon.

Grahame Morris: If the Government are doing so well in relation to targets, why have they downgraded the four-hour waiting target from 98% to 95%?

Jeremy Hunt: I will tell the hon. Gentleman why. It was done on clinical advice, for the good reason that there are some patients whom it is better to see, even if it takes longer than four hours, so that they can be discharged and sent home, rather than admitting them to the hospital, which is what was happening under the 98% target. That is something Labour agrees with, because it is following the same procedure in Wales.

David Wright: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Jeremy Hunt: I am going to make some progress.
	I want to talk about what is happening in England, because the right hon. Gentleman wanted to know the truth. These are the statistics he did not want to tell the House about the comparison with his time in power,
	which he said was so good: 1.2 million more people are going through A and E every year, and more than 2,000 are being seen within four hours every single day, compared with when he was Health Secretary. The average wait to be seen is now 33 minutes compared with 77 minutes when he was Health Secretary—that is 44 more minutes longer, on average, to be seen under Labour than under this Government. For treatment, the average wait is now 75 minutes compared with 102 minutes when he was in office.

Andy Burnham: Will the Secretary of State give a straight answer to this simple question: is there or is there not a crisis in A and E?

Jeremy Hunt: I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the people who know about this at the College of Emergency Medicine, which says today on its website:
	“There is now cause for optimism that the crisis is behind us.”
	He should listen to that before whipping up fears of a crisis that the College of Emergency Medicine says is not happening.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Jeremy Hunt: I am going to make some progress and then I will give way.
	There are 216 more consultants and 111 more registrars than during Labour’s time. On ambulance performance, frankly the right hon. Gentleman should be ashamed, because his whipping up of the problem so appalled the ambulance service that he received a letter from the chief executive of the south-western ambulance service, who said about his comments in the House of Commons:
	“It is both disappointing and concerning that the information provided to your office has been misinterpreted and misreported in order to present a grossly inaccurate picture for the purposes of apparent political gain...I am astonished that anyone would present such misleading information to the House of Commons.”
	Something else that the right hon. Gentleman did not want to tell the House regarding delays is that there has been a 28% fall in the number of 30-minute handover delays compared with the same period last year—that magically did not make it into his speech. Yes, ambulance services are under pressure; yes, there are issues with the performance of some trusts; and yes, this is a busy winter, but the one thing they and the patients they serve can do without is Opposition politicians demotivating crews by misrepresenting the reality on the ground.

Kate Green: Patients in Trafford will not recognise the Secretary of State’s characterisation of this as a crisis that is in the past. They are reporting long delays at Wythenshawe hospital’s and Manchester Royal infirmary’s A and E departments, particularly, as he will know, because Trafford general hospital’s A and E was downgraded to an urgent care centre and now closes overnight, as of three weeks ago. Does he agree that during transition periods for such reconfigurations it would make sense to ensure that there were adequate resources for neighbouring A and Es to take on the new patients? Those resources have not been provided to these hospitals; will he guarantee to provide them now?

Jeremy Hunt: I recognise the hon. Lady’s concern for her constituents. I have looked into the issues in the Manchester and Trafford areas very carefully, and I am assured by
	people on the ground that the problems and challenges they face do not relate to the changes that have been announced in Trafford.

David Wright: rose—

Mike Gapes: rose—

Jeremy Hunt: I am going to make some progress.

Lorely Burt: rose—

Jeremy Hunt: First, I want to give way to my hon. Friend.

Lorely Burt: We have had a very successful campaign in Solihull to restore two-member-crew ambulances to be based in the constituency. However, they still face a big problem with admittance to Heartlands hospital to discharge their patients so that they can get out on the road and back to Solihull again. Can the Secretary of State suggest how the ambulance service could work in a joined-up way with hospitals in order to improve flow-through?

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend raises an important point. Again, we would not hear this from the Opposition spokesman, but ambulance services across the country are making great strides. For example, in the past year there has been a 10% increase in the number of patients that ambulance services do not take to A and Es, and an 8% increase in the number of patients that ambulance services and paramedics are able to treat and discharge on the spot. Those kinds of things can make a huge difference.

Mike Gapes: rose—

Jeremy Hunt: I am going to make some progress.
	I want to move on to what we have been doing. As I said, every Health Secretary deals with difficult winters in the NHS. However, this year is different because we have taken unprecedented steps to relieve the pressure in the short and the long term. For this winter, we have distributed more financial help—£400 million in total—than ever before. So far, that money has paid for 2,900 additional staff, 1,100 more hospital beds, and 1,200 more community beds. It has also paid for additional support for ambulance services and 111 centres. We distributed that money earlier than ever before. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Copeland (Mr Reed) says that we should not have cut the money in the first place. We did not—we protected and increased the NHS budget, which the shadow Health Secretary still wants to cut, as he reaffirmed today and on Monday. We distributed the money in August, earlier than ever before. We extended the winter flu campaign to two and three-year-olds. Patients who require emergency treatment this winter can be assured that they are getting high-quality and speedy care despite the pressure that we all recognise A and E departments are under.
	We have gone further. This year, we have started to tackle the root causes of the long-term pressures in A and E, which are the result of the ageing population, yes, but also, sadly, the disastrous mistakes made by the previous Government, including the 2004 GP contract changes and the 48-hour GP appointment target that did not work.

Mike Gapes: rose—

Barbara Keeley: rose—

Jeremy Hunt: I want to make some progress on this because it was the central point of the shadow Health Secretary’s speech. The reason the 48-hour target was scrapped is very simple: access was getting worse, not better, under that target. On the right hon. Gentleman’s watch, the proportion of people getting an appointment within two days fell, while 25% of people who wanted an appointment more than two days ahead could not get one. They would call wanting an appointment for the following week and be told, “You can only get an appointment by calling less than 48 hours in advance.” But do not take it from me. This morning—

Jamie Reed: Nobody takes it from you.

Jeremy Hunt: Well, the hon. Gentleman should listen to the Royal College of General Practitioners if he does not want to take it from me. This morning, its chair, Dr Maureen Baker, said that Labour’s
	“proposal to bring back the 48-hour target for GPs is an ill-thought out, knee-jerk response to a long-term problem.”
	Unlike Labour, we listen and act when doctors tell us that Government targets are harming patient care.

Siobhain McDonagh: If the right hon. Gentleman feels that scrapping the 48-hour rule for GP appointments was wrong, what would he say to my constituent Mr C, who has e-mailed me today imploring me to get an appointment with his GP because his wife needs a new prescription for her blood pressure drugs and he has spent the past 48 hours on the phone attempting to gain one? How could he help my constituent?

Jeremy Hunt: I would urge him to urge his own MP to back this Government’s initiative to introduce seven-day GP surgery opening in pilots in every single region of the country, and to back plans like those in north-west London, where seven-day GP opening has been introduced—for which we have not had support from Labour.

Guy Opperman: Does the Secretary of State agree that prevention is the most important thing to alleviate A and E pressure, and that the simplest thing we can do is to encourage the populations in all our constituencies to take up the flu jab, which will prevent a large number of people going to A and E?

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This year we have extended flu jabs to two and three-year-olds because we think that prevention is better than cure.
	We have been looking at other causes of the long-term pressure on A and E, such as Labour’s 2004 GP contract. The right hon. Gentleman spent the past year telling this House that that contract, which scrapped named GPs, has nothing to do with the problems in A and E. This is despite what nearly every A and E department in the country is talking about—namely, the pressure being caused by poor primary care alternatives, particularly for the frail elderly. What did he tell Sarah Montague on the “Today” programme when we reversed that GP contract and brought back named GPs for the over-75s?
	He conceded to her, as he never has in this House, that our changes which reversed that contract would help A and E, so he is finally accepting on the radio what he does not accept in this House and what A and E staff have been saying for months—that having someone in the community responsible for frail elderly will help.

Mike Gapes: rose—

Clive Efford: rose—

Jeremy Hunt: I am going to make some progress.
	Our plans go much further than simply reversing the 2004 contract. GPs will offer the most vulnerable guaranteed same-day telephone consultations, which never happened under Labour. There will be a dedicated telephone line so that A and E doctors, ambulance paramedics and others can get advice from GPs about treatment in urgent situations. GPs will co-ordinate care for elderly patients discharged from A and E to try to ensure they get proper wrap-around care to minimise the chance of needing to go back.
	We have done something else that the right hon. Member for Leigh never did to tackle long-term pressure on A and E. One of the biggest problems has been not being able to discharge people from hospital because of poor links between the health and social care systems. Through our £3.8 billion better care fund, this Government are doing something that Labour talked about a lot but never actually delivered: we are merging the health and social care systems. Gone will be people being pushed from pillar to post, because in order to access this fund, clinical commissioning groups and local authorities will have to commit to joint commissioning and joint provision.
	Finally, we have looked at the long-term structure of A and E. The previous Government were battered by a succession of failed reconfigurations. We, too, have had challenges over decisions, such as those with regard to Lewisham. Sir Bruce Keogh’s recent review of urgent and emergency care has changed the terms of this debate by setting out a 21st-centruy vision of emergency care. Sir Bruce rightly said there should be more extensive services outside hospital, and this, too, will help to reduce A and E queues. He rightly said that while the number of A and Es is not expected to change, the services offered by all of them should not be identical if we are to maximise the number of lives saved. Our duty to patients is to make that a reality and we will not hesitate to drive that vision forward.
	A and E and the ambulance services are performing well under unprecedented pressure. I cannot speak highly enough of the hard-working staff who are working around the clock to deliver vital services. They share our overriding commitment to putting patients first this winter. Unlike Labour Members, we do not seek to turn a tough winter into a political football. If they want to make the comparison between our record and theirs, we are happy to do so: more people being seen within four hours, shorter waiting times, and long-term problems being tackled—not posturing from the Opposition, but action from the Government, and a commitment to do what it takes to support hard-working front-line staff over Christmas. We should get behind them and not undermine their efforts.

Mike Gapes: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This information was embargoed until two o’clock today, but following an investigation the Care
	Quality Commission has put King George hospital Ilford and Queen’s hospital Romford into special measures. I tried several times to intervene on the Secretary of State in order to raise the matter, but he refused to take an intervention from me. I therefore seek your advice: how can I draw attention to the matter and the fact that the previous Secretary of State said that King George’s A and E department would close within two years? That is clearly not happening. There is chaos in my local A and Es, yet the Secretary of State did not let me intervene.

Dawn Primarolo: Mr Gapes, in terms of getting your argument on the record, you have just done so, although it was not a point of order, as I think you know. As you are fully aware, it is up to the Secretary of State, or any Member of this House, whether they give way to another Member or not. I am sure you will find ways to pursue this matter over the minutes, hours, days and months ahead.
	I inform Members that there is a five-minute time limit on all Back-Bench contributions in order to ensure that as many Members as possible can participate in the debate.

Siobhain McDonagh: The public look with incredulity at many issues relating to the Government and public services, but highest on the list is the proposal to close A and Es in our NHS when demand for them is becoming greater and stronger.
	St Helier hospital in my constituency has asked for evidence and proof of why its A and E department—which sees 90,000 people a year, meets its four-hour target and has a great safety record—should be closed. We are told by the medical establishment that it will be much better for everyone and that primary care will take up the slack. At no point are the public told—I am sure this is also true of other reconfigurations—where their care will be provided, which GP practices will stay open for longer and which extra services will be available. The public, therefore, are being asked to make a leap of faith and lose their A and E, which they know is there for them in times of desperation and need, in favour of wishful thinking that things will be different in the future. The gap between the Government’s credibility and the public is growing.
	What evidence do the Secretary of State and the Government have that closing A and E departments that nobody believes to be small will provide better medical services? No research shows that to be the case. All the work done by the university of Sheffield and—I never thought I would say this—The Mail on Sunday in its campaign indicates that wholesale A and E closures, not only in rural areas, but in built-up urban areas such as mine, are not in the best interests of patients, and not just in terms of waiting times, but in terms of outcomes.
	We all accept that some specialist services, such as the stroke service, should be concentrated, but there is no evidence to suggest that that needs to happen for what most people go to and A and E for. For those attempting to get a GP appointment in my part of south London, the situation is desperate. I have already referred to an e-mail I received from a constituent only today. It has come to something when constituents are contacting me to ask whether I can get them a GP appointment.
	I challenge the Secretary of State to explain why his holy grail of closing A and Es is a good or wise decision. For as long as those GP services are not available, and for as long as the public do not know which surgery to attend or which services will be provided, they will never accept changes. There must be a presentation of the facts, not just a hope that somehow GPs will do more.
	St Helier hospital is supported by everyone in my area—not just those who use it, but those who understand that demand on St George’s and Croydon university hospitals will increase should it close. For everybody, A and E is a safety valve to the NHS—it is there when other services are not—and for as long as that is the case, we need to keep our local A and Es.

Philip Hollobone: Kettering general hospital will be well known to the Secretary of State, because he was good enough to visit it a year ago to see the excellent service provided by its doctors, nurses and ancillary staff. The hospital has been in existence for 116 years and it is badly needed and much loved. At one time or other, every resident of Kettering has had a member of their family go through the hospital.
	The hon. Member for Corby (Andy Sawford), my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) and I have put our party political differences aside and joined forces to campaign for extra investment for the accident and emergency facility at Kettering general hospital, because it is needed by all of our constituents. We are working as one on the issue. The other good news is that both the hospital trust and the local clinical commissioning groups are also working as one on the issue.
	I thank the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter), who is not in his place, for meeting all three of us, together with representatives from the hospital and the CCGs, over the summer. He has been good enough to agree to meet us again on 15 January.
	All the professionals have come together and agreed that, despite their best efforts and despite following the advice of the Department of Health’s intensive support team to the letter, whichever Government are in power would have to face the fact that the A and E at Kettering is, sadly, not fit for purpose and needs extra capital investment. Their bid to the Department of Health will be for £20 million for Kettering A an E and an extra £3 million to create community hubs—in other words, urgent care centres-plus—in Corby, Kettering and Wellingborough. The three hon. Members, the CCGs and the hospital trust will make a joint bid for that money when we meet the Minister in January.
	The challenge the A and E at Kettering general hospital faces is serving one of the fastest growing populations in the country. In the last decade, Kettering’s population growth ranked 31st out of 348 districts around the country and it had the sixth highest increase in the number of households. Few other parts of the country are growing as fast as the Kettering area, which also has an increasingly ageing population.
	The A and E department at Kettering general hospital was constructed in the 1970s for about 25,000 to 30,000 attendances a year. In 2001 attendances had hit 56,000 and that figure is now 85,000. The A and E centre is effectively bursting at the seams, and attendances show absolutely no sign of falling off. Typically, there could be between 170 and 230 attendances a day—the highest has been 260 in a 24-hour period this year.
	The professional staff—the clinicians—in the A and E have made multiple operational changes. They have adopted all the best practice ideas provided by the Department’s intensive support team, but the key issue remains the estate and the only way to solve that problem is an injection of capital investment. With that investment and with the development of community facilities in Corby, Kettering and Wellingborough, the professional clinicians are confident that the A and E department could at long last start hitting its A and E targets. At the moment, it is treating only 89% —well below the 98% target specified by the Government—of patients within a four-hour period.

Peter Bone: I apologise for being out of breath, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I just wanted to ask my hon. Friend whether the proposal he is talking about has all-party support in the north of the county?

Dawn Primarolo: Order. Mr Peter Bone has just arrived in the Chamber, but one is normally expected to be in the Chamber for more than just a few seconds so as to hear the debate before intervening. I am sure the hon. Gentleman apologises to the House.

Philip Hollobone: I am very grateful for the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) because he has many duties to attend to in this House on behalf of his constituents and he has been at the forefront of the campaign to get extra investment into Kettering’s A and E, and also to develop the community hub patient facilities in Corby, Kettering and Wellingborough.
	With the £3 million capital expenditure bid going to the Department, one of the options would be for a community hub at the Isebrook hospital, which would help to serve my hon. Friend’s constituents in Wellingborough and, by doing so, would take the pressure off the A and E at Kettering. If we are successful in this cross-party bid, the A and E at Kettering would be transformed into an A and E plus an urgent care centre on the site of Kettering general hospital. It would be a one-stop shop for local patients. The A and E at Kettering has the confidence of local people, but the local population growth means that capital investment is needed more than ever, and we look to the Government to provide that in early January.

Peter Bone: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I apologise to the House for the discourtesy shown, but I was very surprised that my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) was called so early in the debate.

Dawn Primarolo: I do not think that is a point of order, but the House has noted it and we will move on now so we do not waste any more time.

Lisa Nandy: My A and E in Wigan is, like so many others across the country, under significant pressure at present. Earlier this year we saw an unprecedented rise in A and E attendances. That is a result of a series of problems, including the difficulty in getting GP appointments, as outlined eloquently by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), but I think the single most significant cause is the cuts that have been made over the past three and a half years to social care. Does the Minister have any idea what those cuts and the unfair distribution of them—my constituency of Wigan has been cut three times more than Windsor— have meant to people in their lives?
	I want to say something about the situation of older people. I have been shocked over the past couple of years by what is happening to older people because of the deep and front-loaded cuts to social care, which have left councils with no option but to cut services. Over the last two years we have seen an unprecedented rise in the number of over-90-year-olds coming into my local A and E and others across the country by ambulance.

Norman Lamb: The hon. Lady talks about the situation in social care and of course I understand that there is real pressure, but will she welcome the fact that in 2012-13 there were 37,473 fewer days lost in delayed discharge due to social care, so in other words, social services are doing better now than they were in previous years?

Lisa Nandy: In the very short amount of time that I have got I will simply echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) who said to the Secretary of State that she thought people would be staggered by the complacency of Members on the Government Benches and would not recognise the picture they paint, which stands in stark contrast to the lived experiences of my constituents, some of whom are old and vulnerable and deserve so much better than this. Behind the increase in the number of admittances to hospital lies a picture of older people who are living alone at home, worried, lonely and ill.
	The Minister’s Government have not caused all of this, but, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh, I have talked about my concern about what has happened in social care and the rise of zero-hours contracts and choosing the lowest bidder over recent years, so, by God, I must also say this: his Government have made the situation so much worse. By the end of next year the budget of my council in Wigan will have been cut by £66 million, and we were told this summer that another 10% is still to come. We have done everything. We have pared that organisation to the bone. The truth is there are no more efficiencies to be had; there are only cuts.
	I say this to the Minister as well: this is not just about councils, because what this Government have done, and the Darwinian approach they have taken to the voluntary sector, has severely undermined the capacity of charities to respond to this crisis at the very time when they are needed most. This is the true meaning of the big society.
	We are seriously disrupted in Wigan—

Norman Lamb: rose—

Lisa Nandy: I will not give way to the Minister because I presume he will be winding up the debate and I hope he will spend the rest of his time listening to Members rather than trying to explain away such an appalling record.
	I cannot understand why, despite all the pressures already being put on my A and E by this Government and despite its still being consistently one of the highest performing A and Es across the north-west, we are being disrupted by the Healthier Together programme, which has caused so much anxiety in Wigan.

Grahame Morris: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Lisa Nandy: I will give way very briefly to my hon. Friend.

Grahame Morris: I want to reinforce that point in relation to Durham county council. I have just been advised that Library figures show that it is facing cuts of £222 million between 2011 and 2017. That must have a huge impact on social care and a consequential impact of increased demand in A and E.

Lisa Nandy: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, as always.
	The Healthier Together programme has, at this time, caused huge anxiety across Wigan. In June, documents leaked to my local paper the Wigan Evening Post revealed plans to reclassify hospitals as red and green, with several hospitals downgraded, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston knows only too well. That prompted real fears across Wigan that it would lose its well-regarded 24-hour A and E. The decision appeared to be based on population, not on the performance of hospitals. In September when I visited the Healthier Together offices in Manchester to explain my concerns with my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling), I was surprised to see, at a time of funding pressures that are causing real pain, how expensive those offices were, situated in the middle of Manchester. Imagine my surprise, Madam Deputy Speaker, when Healthwatch Wigan found through a series of Freedom of Information Act requests that the total cost of the Healthier Together programme in Greater Manchester to date has been £3 million, with £1.3 million of that spent on third-party organisations. The NHS would not reveal who or what that money was spent on. To date, the programme could, in total, have paid for 90 new nurses, 20 A and E doctors or 9,000 bed days at Wigan infirmary. Instead, this hugely expensive programme has caused huge anxiety across my local area, and communication has been dire. I am not alone in thinking that that is a shocking waste of money.
	Despite the chaos caused by this Government, our A and E works well: it is a consistently high performer. We are a big borough, with huge transport constraints. To ask people to travel to the nearest alternative hospital in Bolton just is not feasible. It is 15 miles away, which is at least half an hour by car. What the Minister may not know or understand is that many of my constituents do not have cars or the money to take several buses or use public transport. Our borough typically has large, tightly knit families. When someone’s granddad goes into A and E, not just them and their mum and dad but the entire family visit him, which will be impossible if this shambolic programme goes ahead.
	The Secretary of State has caused real anxiety by acting unlawfully in respect of Lewisham A and E, announcing the single biggest closure programme the NHS has seen at a time of unprecedented pressure on A and E, and making changes in the Care Bill that will enable the closure of high-performing hospital services such as those in Wigan. Will the Minister give me a cast-iron guarantee that decisions will be made on clinical, not cost grounds, and will he reassure us that financial constraints do not come into this? Will he tell my constituents that the real-life situation of local people—transport, family networks, income and all the things that have a huge impact on people’s well-being—will be considered by this Government before any decision is taken that affects my constituents’ lives?

Phillip Lee: On 27 December 1999, I and two other junior doctors embarked on a ward round at Wexham Park hospital in Slough. We had 72 patients to see that day, and it took us 13 hours to get round to them all. I say that because it was 14 years ago, yet I am hearing that this is the A and E crisis to end all crises. Every year, doctors in the national health service are worried and concerned about the pressures that the winter will bring to bear, and I do not think that this year is any different from 1999.
	I want to try to be a bit challenging today and, in view of the motion, perhaps a bit counter-intuitive. We have too many casualty departments in this country. We should look at the mortality statistics—the likelihood of survival. I would say to the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) that, if my grandfather went into hospital, I would want him to go into the one where he had the best chance of survival, not necessarily the one down the road. I do not know about her hospital, but a large number of hospitals in this country unfortunately do not deliver the best care or the best mortality statistics. We need to reflect on that without trying to score petty political points about a variety of different issues.

Grahame Morris: I want to query the hon. Gentleman’s point about this crisis not being anything unusual. The Government’s own Health and Social Care Information Centre has published figures showing that the number of visits to A and E departments in England has risen by 11% in four years to 21.5 million attendances, which is 60,000 a day. The numbers are clearly increasing, and our argument is that that is partially the consequence of the Government policy of cutting social services.

Phillip Lee: There has actually been a 37% increase in emergency admissions over the past decade, while 65% of hospital admissions are of people over 65. Dementia is doubling as we speak, and 25% of the NHS budget will be spent on diabetes by 2025. I am sorry, but to try to suggest that the genesis of the challenge we face has been during the three years of this Government is simplistic. The most polite way to put it is that the hon. Gentleman is making a simplistic argument.

Kate Green: I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman about our wanting a configuration of services that ensures that patients get the best possible care and saves
	lives, but does he not agree that, if changes have to be made, transition planning and resources to support the transition are absolutely vital components of success? I have to tell him that, in relation to the reconfiguration we have just gone through in Trafford, I simply have not seen such resources put in place.

Phillip Lee: I agree with the hon. Lady that the plans for many of the configurations have been somewhat made up on the hoof. They have usually been created and pushed by a series of local issues—such as 19th or 20th-century buildings that can no longer deliver 21st-century health care—but I recognise the need for a plan, and I will come back to that at the end of my speech.
	I fear that a perfect storm is looming at the moment. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) will allow me, I will come on to what I think we need to do. The perfect storm is that we have infrastructure that is not fit for purpose, too many hospitals that we cannot staff properly—one of the contributory factors in Mid Staffordshire was poor staffing levels, because it was trying to work over two hospital sites for a population that is not big enough to support one—and an ageing and increasingly obese society, as well as changes in people’s attitudes to pain and suffering and to seeking health care.
	I have not yet heard a speech about the type of presentations occurring in casualty departments. Such presentations are rarely accidents and are extremely rarely emergencies. We must ask ourselves how we can address that. I am standing here with a dreadful cold and feeling pretty lousy. I have seen hundreds of patients who have presented to me as a GP or in A and E feeling like I do, but I will not go either to my GP or to A and E, because I understand that I have a viral infection that will get better by itself. The problem at the moment is that people just rock up at A and E because they think that it is the only place they will get seen, and no one questions whether they should just not bother turning up.

Nicholas Soames: I am following what my hon. Friend is saying very carefully. Does he agree that part of the problem with A and E is the tremendous back-up of people who are admitted, and the inability to discharge people who ought not to be in hospital?

Phillip Lee: Yes, we need to integrate. The shadow Front-Bench team is right to call for more integration, which is part of the issue.
	That perfect storm is coming and I suspect it will hit this or the other side of 2020, when we will have such an ageing society with such expectations, and a creaking infrastructure that is not able to deliver the best care that can be delivered.
	Given the time available, I shall be brief, but we need to have a cross-party plan. I suspect that we have twice as many acute hospitals as we need, and that we probably need only about 100 in England and Wales. The population served by each acute hospital should be about 500,000, 600,000 or 700,000, which is nine or 10 constituencies, so we would not all be able to come to the Chamber to defend our local district general hospital. I am sorry, but those days have passed. If you think that I am a maverick, I am backed up by every single royal college, the King’s Fund, the NHS Confederation—I could go on. Therefore, we need to deal with the issue.
	I recognise that the politics is very difficult. I think that we should convene a cross-party committee and have a cross-party understanding. We will have to do that at some point in the next five to 10 years, and it would be remiss and wrong of us as an institution to ignore that reality. I am tired of sitting here and listening to hon. Members trying to score political points on this issue. Of course we can argue about the funding of health care and there is scope to debate philosophical differences about health care provision, but when it comes down to it, we need a hospital infrastructure that can deliver the best acute emergency and surgical care to everybody at their time of need. I fear that we do not have that.
	We need to integrate social care with health care. There are some models—Cambridgeshire has embarked on a very good plan—but it needs to happen up and down the country. We need seven-day-a-week care, but to staff that appropriately, we need fewer hospitals. We will not be able to have seven-day-a-week consultant care on every district general hospital site in this country. I wish I had a bit longer, but I will conclude. I think that we really need to raise the bar, because everyone in this country wants the best care for all.

Clive Efford: The hon. Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee) has just said that there is a perfect storm coming and has appealed for a cross-party approach to deal with the issues in the national health service. I absolutely agree with him about that.
	Before the last general election, that is exactly what we had in south-east London. We had a consultation over a couple of years on the “A picture of health” programme, which involved the closure of an A and E. The point is that that was a clinically led consultation. Doctors came to us politicians and said that, if we reconfigured services in a certain way, they could treat patients better and save more lives. I took the view before the general election that the sensible approach was to support those clinicians. It would have been easy for me to man the barricades, defend my local services, say that the reconfiguration was horrible and be a populist local MP. However, I took the view that we needed leadership and cross-party agreement to make the changes that were needed to improve services.
	Sadly, when this Government came in, they threw out the whole APOH reconfiguration. After saying in their manifesto that there would be no “forced closure” of A and E and maternity services, the Conservatives came in and said to Lewisham hospital, “Close your A and E and maternity services.”
	The Conservatives had said that they would stop the closure of Queen Mary’s hospital, Sidcup. People could have been knocked over in the rush of Tories who wanted to join the campaign to save Queen Mary’s. What happened when they got into power? They closed Queen Mary’s. On that site, there is now a health industrial estate. It will be an incubator for private health care. There will be elective surgery there under Gravesham health care for a short period, but it will go out to tender. We all know where it will go. It will go out to the private sector. There is a site for hire at Queen Mary’s, Sidcup. All sorts of services will come in and compete with NHS services.

Andy Slaughter: That is a familiar story to all of us. There are four A and Es closing in west London and two major hospitals are changing. Charing Cross hospital will no longer be a major teaching hospital and half the site is being sold off. In its place, there will be a local hospital that provides primary care services. The Tories said that those hospitals were closing under Labour when they were not. They are now going back on their promises. In many cases, direct promises were given on site before the last election.

Clive Efford: There is example after example of broken promises. The Conservatives accused people of planning to close hospitals when there was no plan to do so, and then came in and did it themselves.
	We have a curious situation. The Secretary of State has been saying, “Crisis? What crisis?” Today, he read out a quote saying that the crisis is behind us. That is a little confusing. Of course, the crisis that he was talking about was a summer crisis. He did not mention that. He presided over a summer crisis. That is pretty unique. I do not think that even Virginia Bottomley achieved a summer crisis, but I could be wrong.
	The crisis is of the Government’s own making. The Secretary of State talked about the need for services away from the hospital to protect A and E from being overwhelmed. However, one of the first things that they did was to do away with the 24-hour promise of a visit to the GP. They then introduced 111, which had algorithms and questions that all ended with the advice, “Go to your A and E.” There are now 850 fewer surgeries opening at evenings and weekends, and a quarter of walk-in centres have closed. Talk about reinventing the wheel—the Government are now saying that those are the sorts of things that we need to do. The crisis in A and E is of the Government’s making. It is their decisions that have created the situation.
	To return to south-east London, the Secretary of State appointed the trust special administrator to oversee the merger of Lewisham and Queen Elizabeth hospitals. The local authority took on that decision because the powers that the Government took were not within their remit. The Government were challenged in the court and defeated. The Government are now moving the goalposts. Having said before the last general election that there would be no top-down reconfiguration and that they would not enforce closures if the local community did not agree with them, they are taking powers to impose closures on local communities.
	In the minute that I have left, I want to say to the Minister that there has been a series of broken promises. It is fitting that a Liberal Democrat is summing up a debate on broken promises on the NHS.

Norman Lamb: indicated dissent.

Clive Efford: It is true. Where were any of the things that are happening to our NHS in the Liberal Democrats’ manifesto? None of them were in their manifesto. They never put them before the electorate.
	We want no return to the closure of Lewisham A and E. The closure of Queen Mary’s, Sidcup has had the knock-on effect of overwhelming the other A and Es in south-east London. That is clear for all to see. Those A and Es are under serious pressure. It is clear that there is
	no slack in the system to pick up the additional burden from that closure. We must have a guarantee from the Government that they will not impose the closure of another A and E on the people of south-east London. I would like to hear that from the Minister when he sums up.

Paul Burstow: I want to pick up on a couple of points that were made by the hon. Members for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) and for Bracknell (Dr Lee) about reconfiguration. The hon. Gentleman said that all too often the experience of hon. Members is that reconfiguration feels as if it is being done on the hoof. I agree with the hon. Lady about the proposed reconfiguration in south-west London and about St Helier hospital. Whether that will ever happen is still up in the air—let us hope that it does not. A leap of faith was demanded of constituents across south-west London, not least because the plans did not contain any measures to improve out-of-hospital care, without which it would not be possible to achieve the changes to emergency services that were being proposed. Those points are part of this debate, which is primarily about whether there is a crisis and, if there is, what the nature and causes of it might be. Although the Labour motion acknowledges that there are many causes of the problem, it has a very simplistic solution.
	The evidence shows that there is a mixed picture across the country. That is reflected in the allocation of the first wave of additional funding for the NHS to meet winter pressures. That funding went to the health economies that were the most challenged. Some are coping well with the seasonal change from the higher volume, but less complex A and E attendance pattern of the spring and summer to the winter pattern of fewer, but much more complex cases, which often involves more frail and older people, and leads to more admissions. That pattern is repeated year on year and the demographic changes continue year on year. The pattern is well documented and it is very sensitive to the weather. That is why I welcome the Government’s cold weather plans and their support for local government and other agencies to put in place the extra social support that is necessary to avoid admissions in the first place.
	Where there are problems, the causes vary. Some of the pressure stems from changes in behaviour. People now see A and E as the easiest point of entry into the system for any ailment. Often, there is confusion about the access arrangements for out-of-hours care. Those behavioural changes are cumulative. They are a consequence of changes that were made some years ago, not least through the changes to the responsibility for out-of-hours care in the GP contract. The implementation of those changes undoubtedly sowed much of the confusion over how to access emergency care.

Andrew George: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a lot of potential patients are confused about what out-of-hours unscheduled care is available? There are A and Es, minor injuries units, out-of-hours GP services, GP walk-in centres, NHS 111 and so on. Many people cannot discriminate between those services and do not know what they are supposed to provide. They therefore need to be further integrated.

Paul Burstow: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One of the good things that came out of the work by Keith Willett and Sir Bruce Keogh is the more coherent, communicable and understandable way in which emergency care can and should be organised. Indeed, in some cases there are also staffing pressures. Those are not helped by some of the unintended consequences of changing medical careers, as that has had an impact on the supply of medical doctors.
	Labour’s answer seems to be that we should go back to the good old days—whatever they were—of a 48-hour target, but that target was flawed. When it was removed by the Government, the British Medical Association welcomed the change, which it said would give GPs greater flexibility to organise their appointments. Today we have heard—quite rightly—from the chair of the BMA, Dr Maureen Baker, who said the proposal was ill thought out and a knee-jerk response to long-term problems, and that it would make a bad situation worse.

Andy Burnham: Do not the views of patients matter most? The right hon. Gentleman is quoting the professionals, but perhaps it is sometimes inconvenient for them to have to do things. Surely the point is that people are ringing surgeries and cannot get appointments. If he does not like the 48-hour target, surely he and the coalition Government should put forward their alternative so that people can get to see their doctor.

Paul Burstow: With all due respect to the shadow Secretary of State, when presenting arguments in support of his motion he set out a range of professional expertise and opinions for why there should be a 48-hour target. It is therefore not unreasonable for me to quote other professional opinion on why that would not be good for patients. I will come to some of the alternatives that I think are relevant to addressing the A and E problem, because I do not think that simply addressing it through a 48-hour target makes any sense at all.
	The changes the Government are making to the GP contract will help—not least having a named person co-ordinating care for the over-75s. I hope the welcome focus on frailty and multi-morbidity will be extended to more people on the basis of their need, not simply their age. Figures show that the average number of diagnosed conditions for patients admitted from A and E has increased over the past five years. In other words, the medical needs of people attending A and E are getting more complex, and that impacts on the amount of time people spend in A and E departments. Therefore, the answer is not one simple solution but must be a combination of actions. Much of that needs to be centred in primary and social care, as well as mental health services. In primary care we must recognise that it is not just about GP services and that we need best practice around the country, for example in engaging pharmacies as first care centres or getting them to play a key role in managing long-term conditions—a big driver of pressure on A and E departments, particular in winter.
	We need concrete action to drive the integration of health and social care—that may be mentioned in the motion, but the Government are delivering it, not least with the £3.8 billion first steps for a better care fund, which is bringing health and social care together in a practical and unprecedented way that has not been achieved before. That must be welcomed as a first step
	which I hope will grow as more resources are pooled across the system. It is essential to delivering the integrated, co-ordinated care that people want.
	Mental health was neglected by Labour, under which there were no access standards or targets for people suffering a mental health crisis. In fact, under Labour two thirds of people suffering from a mental health crisis waited for more than four hours to be seen. I applaud what the Minister is doing to improve that situation significantly by setting standards for the first time to drive improvement in that area.
	I conclude with a quote from Dr Clifford Mann, president of the College of Emergency Medicine:
	“While this winter will be tough for the NHS and A and E departments in particular—”
	I think we should acknowledge that—
	“I believe there is now cause for optimism and that the crisis is behind us.”
	Yes, there have been problems, but the Government have been addressing them in a comprehensive way. That is why this debate is mis-timed, wrong, and does our constituents no good whatsoever. It does not identify the real problem, although this Government are getting on with sorting the issue out.

Kate Green: I want to speak about the current situation in Trafford and some of the lessons that Ministers might want to learn from the transition we went through when the A and E department at Trafford general hospital was downgraded to an urgent care centre and closed overnight. Despite assurances that neighbouring accident and emergency services at Manchester royal infirmary and Wythenshawe hospital would be able to cope following that change, problems are already piling up. Those problems may not have been caused wholly—or perhaps at all—by the changes at Trafford, but the impact on Trafford patients is pretty dire and we must take account of that.
	Those A and E departments were already exceptionally busy, with the one at Wythenshawe working well beyond capacity. It was built to accommodate 70,000 patients a year but was already dealing with more than 100,000, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) pointed out from the outset. We welcome the fact that the Department now appears to have unlocked a route to additional funding for capacity at Wythenshawe, but that funding, let alone the additional capacity, is not yet in place.
	As the Minister will know, in the past couple of weeks Wythenshawe A and E has reached “black” status for waiting times, and privately there are indications that the quarter 3 target for waiting times at the hospital will not be met. There are also reports that waiting queues for ambulances are doubling outside Wythenshawe hospital, and pressures are mounting at Manchester royal infirmary. The other day a constituent told me that she had visited on the evening of Sunday 8 December with her diabetic daughter and there were not even enough seats for waiting patients. Some people were forced to wait outside.
	Those pressures were predicted. Last year, Manchester royal infirmary and Wythenshawe hospital struggled to meet waiting time targets, and indeed failed to meet them on at least one occasion in 30 out of 35 weeks. The
	Secretary of State was clearly concerned about the pressures on those hospitals because one criterion he set down for the reconfiguration of services at Trafford was that neighbouring hospitals should consistently meet waiting times before the changes were made.
	On the basis of performance in the two summer quarters, the NHS asserted that the criterion on waiting times at those hospitals had been met, despite warnings from many people—including me—that not measuring performance during the winter months would give a distorted picture of the capacity of those hospitals to cope. The Minister must recognise that that caused a great collapse of public confidence—they were not very confident about the proposals for the reconfiguration anyway—because it seemed that fudging was going on to present an impression that hospital services could cope, when it then turned out they could not. To use data that are clearly applied in a way that suits the outcome NHS managers want, rather than being in the best interests of patients, is a matter of great concern. Will the Minister say how we can have genuine and robust criteria for reconfigurations in which the public can have confidence? The total absence of clarity and the fudging over the decision at Trafford over the past few weeks has had an unfortunate effect.
	When the Secretary of State announced the funding in September, neither Manchester royal infirmary nor Wythenshawe received extra money to deal with winter pressures. I was surprised because we knew by then that reconfiguration would create extra demand on those two A and E departments. I am anxious to hear from the Minister about the Department’s approach to ensuring adequate additional resource to support transition for such reconfigurations.

Grahame Morris: My hon. Friend makes an important point about demand in deprived areas. The Government’s health and social care information centre has identified that in each of the past five years, at least twice the number of attendances have been from those living in the 10% most deprived areas, compared with those from the 10% least deprived areas. That should be reflected in the allocation of funding, but unfortunately such areas receive no additional money at all.

Kate Green: Two pressures could be highlighted. The first is the way that funding fails to take adequate account of deprivation. Secondly, there will inevitably be a hump at the time of transition, as new arrangements settle down and people adapt to the changing service configuration. When providing resources to Manchester royal infirmary or Wythenshawe, no account seems to have been taken of the effect of that transition and the likely need for additional resource to take those hospitals through that period. Indeed, in a private meeting with the Secretary of State, after the reconfiguration was announced, he confirmed that there would be no additional transitional funding. I could, however, look forward to additional funding to enable greater integration of services, although not until 2015-16. Furthermore, it would not be new funding, but funding that had been moved from the NHS to social care.
	I am as strongly in support as anyone of seeing funding directed as much as possible to preventive care and care that can be provided at home in the community, but we cannot take services from hospitals before we put that care in place in the community. Such care is simply not adequate in Trafford today.
	The other matter I want to raise was alluded to by the right hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow). There is utter confusion among patients about what services they should access and when. As soon as Trafford was downgraded to an urgent care centre, Trafford patients believed they could not go there. That was not the intention of NHS managers, but the impact was undoubtedly to drive more traffic to neighbouring A and E departments.

Andy Slaughter: My hon. Friend makes an important point. A and Es and anything we would recognise as such are being closed. They are turned into urgent care centres, which deal with minor injuries with GP cover at best. They are called second-tier A and E units, which is incredibly damaging, dangerous and confusing for people. It is done simply as a political fix, so that Tory councils and others can distribute leaflets saying, “There’s still an A and E on this site.”

Kate Green: Whatever the motivation—NHS managers in my area have tried to communicate the changes and how patients should respond to them—there is huge patient confusion about where they should go, what time they should go and what treatment they will receive. The right hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam referred Sir Bruce Keogh’s report, which highlighted patient confusion. During periods of transition, confusion is heightened as people become used to new configurations. What lessons are being learned on how to communicate effectively with patients so they have proper understanding of what services are available and where they ought to go?
	Massive problems are piling up over this winter period, when we might expect additional pressures—we see them every winter. There is a failure of local planning and ministerial engagement in ensuring that those transition processes work smoothly for patients in Trafford. I hope the Minister comments on how transitions will be handled in future. I venture to suggest that Trafford is, I fear, an early example of how not to do it. I look forward to his response.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. I am reducing the time limit to four minutes. It is possible for each of the remaining speakers to have four minutes only if interventions are severely curtailed or if they do not happen at all—let me put it that way. The wind-ups have to start at 3.30 pm at the absolute latest. Those who have been waiting patiently and who have not intervened have had their time cut. Perhaps they will bear that in mind when they are called.

Eric Ollerenshaw: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), who attempted to make solid, practical suggestions in a debate that has too often become too politicised, as the debate on A and E did in June. I will refer to that later.
	I represent a large constituency with a large rural population. Some people are 10, 15 or 20 miles away from the one A and E. To me, it sounds a little bit rich
	when hon. Members from urban areas talk about the A and Es in their part of town when no account of that distance or rurality was included in any grant formula by the previous Government. I wanted to put that on the record.
	From my perspective and, I am sure, from that of all hon. Members, the majority of our constituents get a damn good service from hard-working professionals, who will work at Christmas time when the rest of us are on holiday. Having said that, hon. Members recognise that there has been a big growth in the number of people attending A and E. Those facts are clear. Opposition Members suggest that that happened last year or a few years ago. According to the Opposition motion, the increase has been
	“three times faster since 2009-10”.
	However, the College of Emergency Medicine report “The drive for quality” shows a sharp upward trend in new attendances at A and E, but its figures start from 2003.
	That ties in with local information. I asked my A and E doctors at the Lancaster royal infirmary to give me figures for the past few years. They say that the number of new patients attending A and E decreased between 1989 and 1993 and steadied at about 35,000 admissions a year until 1999, when the number increased rapidly. The figures are clear. There were 35,000 A and E admissions in 1999; 36,000 in 2000; and 37,000 in 2001. There was an increase of 1,000 in every single year to 2007. Funnily enough, there was a 3,000 increase in A and E attendances from 2006 to 2007. The latest figures I have are for 2011, when there were 52,500 attendances. The increase did not happen yesterday but continually over that period, for all the reasons hon. Members have mentioned.
	The other side of the problem is the training and retention of A and E specialists. We have all heard stories of vacancies in A and E departments. I understand that it was announced today that Wales is 15% down on A and E specialists. One reason is that working in A and E is hard, and there is evening and weekend work, so people move to other specialisms. To increase retention, we need to recognise the work of A and E specialists, which might mean through salaries. We need to give A and E specialists the recognition they deserve to keep them in those posts.
	The Labour motion mentions the 48-hour appointment guarantee. It is no use having an appointment within 48 hours if it lasts for only five minutes before the doctor moves the patient out just to meet the target, which is what happened in the past.

Toby Perkins: Hon. Members will remember that when the Prime Minister wanted to detoxify the Tory brand, he said that he could spell out his priorities in three letters—NHS—but people in Chesterfield have seen through that cruel joke. Opinion polls show us that the importance of the national health service is going up as the Government’s record is so terribly exposed.
	I did a survey across Chesterfield this summer and spoke to people about a range of issues, as I did back in 2009. Back then, satisfaction with the NHS was clear, but now 37% say that GP services have got worse, and
	just 12% say they have got better. Only 8% say that they think the NHS has got better since 2010; almost 50% think it is getting worse.
	I want to focus on the part of the motion that deals with the difficulty of accessing GP services, which is one of the primary causes of those figures. Some 42% of people who appear in A and E have previously attempted to contact GP services. Hon. Members might remember my raising the case of Jemma Hill on 22 October with the Secretary of State. Her GP referred her to a specialist, who recommended hip arthroscopy surgery. She was then told that her clinical commissioning group would not fund the surgery. The Secretary of State promised to look into the matter if I wrote to him. I wrote to him on 23 October but still there is no response. Jemma Hill is still in agony. She sees a fragmented national health service leaving her behind.
	The problems in the NHS, and in GP services in particular, are acute in the Staveley. A recent Care Quality Commission report found that the Rectory Road and Grange health centres failed on five different criteria. I surveyed almost every house in Middlecroft and Inkersall, which are parts of Staveley, and had hundreds of responses. Eighty-six per cent. said that services were unsatisfactory or very poor.
	I have here some of the comments of the people who responded. One says, “I don’t bother going to the doctors anymore. I could never get an appointment. I simply self-diagnose on Google.” Someone else said that they are entirely dependent on locums, meaning that when their scans or results come back, the GP is not there. One patient said that a GP broke down in tears in front of them. Another patient said that no one had contacted them after their blood test results. In fact, they should have been urgently sent to hospital—subsequently, they discovered they had cancer.
	One person said that they waited eight weeks for a GP appointment. When they eventually got one, they were told that they had a hernia and were sent straight to hospital. Another person waited two weeks for an appointment for a repeat prescription, meaning that they did not have their prescription for more than a week. One 90-year-old said that they had to get a taxi to the surgery and had to queue outside at 8 o’clock in the morning.
	I met a partner at that GP surgery to talk about the GP crisis. They said that they are desperately struggling to recruit people. There is a widespread GP recruitment crisis. I was told that a huge number of GPs have retired, either because they are disillusioned or simply because they want to get out of the service. Forty-three per cent. of GPs told a Pulse survey that they will retire earlier than they had intended because of how disillusioned they are.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) spoke about the massive impact the Government’s cuts to care services have had on A and E, but there is also a huge crisis in general practice. The people of Staveley, and people across the country, do not have proper access to a GP service. The problem is getting worse and it is exacerbating the problem in A and E. The people suffering are not only the brave heroes who work so hard in the national health service, but those in the most deprived communities in our constituencies. It is a disgrace.

Andrew George: My expectations for this debate were low, having previously endured shouting matches between the former Labour Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), and the current Secretary of State, with the usual antics of carefully selected and spun statistics thrown at each other. Those expectations were not disappointed. This issue is not helped by being dragged into the gutter of partisan politics. The fact is that the A and E crisis—if there is indeed an A and E crisis—has existed and has been endemic in the NHS before and after 2010. This is largely the result of A and E being seen as an issue that somehow needs to be treated separately and not part of an integrated NHS. Before 2010, there were ambulances queuing outside the A and E in my constituency and in the Royal Cornwall Hospitals Trust in Truro. The problem exists. From time to time, there will be those kinds of pressures. Those pressures are created by a whole set of things that are not entirely the fault of a failing A and E service.
	One aspect of unscheduled care in Cornwall that I raised with the former Secretary of State is the out-of-hours GP service. The previous Labour Government were perfectly happy to see that service put out to tender and privatised, and we saw a fragmented unscheduled care service. I reported the Serco out-of-hours GP service to the CQC, because it was simply putting profit before patients by manipulating statistics to make the outcomes appear better than they were. It was announced last week that Serco will be handing that contract back early. I hope that that will result in an integration of unscheduled out-of-hours care, as that is the kind of thing we need to do. This is not an issue that should be subject to party political point scoring, because that completely misses the target.

Valerie Vaz: The hon. Gentleman sat on the Select Committee with me. He must surely accept that there was a top-down reorganisation that nobody wanted and that cost the NHS £3 billion.

Andrew George: Yes, and the previous Labour Government were involved in multiple top-down reorganisations of the NHS. The hon. Lady knows that I opposed that top-down reorganisation; I voted against the Health and Social Care Bill.
	We could just bemoan the things that are going wrong, but I want, in two minutes, to at least lay on the table my prescription for what needs to be put right. The two themes have to be integration and prevention. My intervention on my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow) spelled out the theme of integration. Unscheduled care includes not only A and E, but minor injuries units, urgent care services, the 111 service, the ambulance service, the out-of-hours GP service, GP surgeries themselves, and, indeed, GP walk-in centres, which the previous Government created. Significant confusion is created about where the general public are supposed to take themselves if they have an urgent need for medical attention. We really need to find ways to integrate those unscheduled services in a way that does not result in the fragmentation that bedevils the service at present.
	On prevention, often in acute hospitals planned work cannot go ahead because patients cannot be discharged from hospital and other patients cannot be admitted
	because there are insufficient beds. The health service is not integrated, because there are insufficient community beds and the primary care service is struggling and stretched to the limit, unable to provide the kind of care for people in their homes and community hospitals that would avoid them ending up in hospital as emergency cases. Those are the two themes: further integration of the service, which is not helped by the Health and Social Care Act 2012, and significant investment in preventive care and primary care.

Barbara Keeley: We know that rising demand is concentrated in those aged over 85. Cuts in social care budgets are now widely acknowledged as contributory factors in rising admissions, and the Select Committee’s inquiry heard that from witnesses again and again.
	Salford city council has made cuts of 20% to its adult social care budget since 2010, given the cuts it has had from the Government. This year, the city council is changing its eligibility from moderate to substantial, and social care staff estimate that the number of people receiving council-funded care will fall this year by 1,000, from 8,500 to 7,500. That is a very big change to happen in one year.
	Cuts already made to the NHS locally have also had an impact. We have seen the closure of two walk-in centres, including one in Little Hulton, a deprived area in my constituency that was under-doctored. The walk-in centre was popular and successful. The Minister’s predecessor will have heard my plea about this again and again. The local primary care trust, when we had one, axed the pilot of an active case management scheme for people with long-term conditions. Those things were done under the umbrella of NHS efficiency savings, but they achieve the opposite. More older people will not be receiving council-funded care and that will have an impact on family carers. We have no walk-in centres and no active case management for people with long-term conditions.
	I want to refer briefly to the Carers UK survey of 3,500 carers conducted earlier this year. Some 55% were caring for people who had been admitted to hospital emergency services, with a significant proportion of those carers referring to support that could have prevented those emergency admissions. We have seen exactly the same message in the CQC state of care report.
	I want to take this opportunity to congratulate Salford Royal hospital on its excellent inspection report from the CQC. The hospital was found to demonstrate exceptional leadership qualities at all levels across its staff, but even excellent hospitals like Salford Royal are now feeling the strain of extra emergency admissions. The chief executive told me that in the winter quarter last year it had 10% more ambulance arrivals, patients were sicker, there was an increase in people staying longer than 72 hours, and there was a significant increase in co-morbidity among the patients. And all that happened before the cuts and loss of council funding of care to 1,000 patients this winter.
	I want to touch briefly on the shortage of emergency doctors, which the College of Emergency Medicine has been warning about since 2010. That situation is not
	going to improve. The fill rate of higher trainee posts has been running at 40% or less since 2010. The latest recruitment round for ST4 trainees filled 37 posts out of 193 vacancies. There is some talk today of increasing the number of vacancies for emergency medicine trainees, but people are voting with their feet. The career pressures in A and E are just too great, and they are putting people off having careers in emergency medicine.
	In conclusion, £2.68 billion has been cut from adult social care since 2010. We are seeing the cuts in our budgets in Salford, and 1,000 people will lose care. That will put pressure on their health and that of their families. The Secretary of State briefly mentioned the integration transformation fund, but there is no new money in that fund—none at all. Health Ministers need to think again about the impact that cuts in social care are having on the NHS. Pooling budgets with the same amount of money in the integration fund will not help. They need to deal with the crisis in A and E staffing and try to make it a career that people want to go into. As the motion states, they need to restore the 48-hour appointment guarantee. I support the motion.

Guy Opperman: As a jockey, I spent far too much time in A and E departments after coming off race horses. Once, I wandered into Leicester hospital with a broken collarbone and four bones sticking out of my shoulder. On another occasion, I spent a long time with a cut kidney and lost a spleen at Warwick hospital—I thank Dr Mike Stellakis and his team for saving my life that night. Also, two years ago, I collapsed in the House and spent a night in St Thomas’ with a young but capable bunch of A and E doctors. I thank them all and put on the record this Christmas the huge effort made by all our public sector staff, particularly in the NHS.
	In Northumberland, we feel that we are leading the way in health care provision. Begun under the previous Government, that has continued under this one. Haltwhistle is a small cottage hospital that in the olden days would have been shut, but which now is being rebuilt as an integrated NHS and local authority facility. It is the first of its kind in the country, it is utterly transformative and it is exactly what the NHS and the local authority should be doing with old buildings, although I urge the trust to resolve the contracts that are not yet resolved. When I visited it last week, however, I saw that it was a truly innovative building and that it would be a great addition.
	Hexham A and E is also a fantastic building. This November, I worked there as a hospital porter, and I thank Barry, the head porter, who has worked there 31 years, for keeping me in line and ensuring I did not put anything in the wrong place. Then there is Cramlington, an innovative, pre-Keogh assessment health care centre being built for the north-east. It is a perfect example of where we should be going: a 24-hour, seven-day-a-week, consultant-led facility. As an A and E specialist care facility, it is exactly what Keogh is talking about. Interestingly, it was planned under the previous Government and is being brought forward under this one. It is exactly the direction we should be heading in.
	I shall deal briefly with another issue. Northumbria has outstanding health care, but sadly North Cumbria is having some difficulties, and I urge the Secretary of
	State to expedite the merger of Northumbria and North Cumbria NHS trusts as soon as possible.
	I turn now to ways we can keep our constituents and patients out of A and E. I have no spleen—it was kicked out of me by a three-mile chaser at Stratford—so every year I need the flu jab. Consequently, like pensioners, some young children and vulnerable adults, I went to get my flu jab last month at Haltwhistle GP centre. I thank Sarah Speed—it was not painful and took only five minutes. Tragically, however, at least 10% to 20% of the population do not take up the flu jab and are therefore likely to end up in A and E over the winter or possibly die. As constituency MPs, we must ram home their failure to take up the opportunity to deal with their own health care.
	Finally, I turn to the hospice and dementia care systems in Northumberland. In the Charlotte Straker hospice and Tynedale Hospice at Home, we have two outstanding hospices, both of which I have assisted and one of which I have fundraised for. Both do a great job keeping people out of hospital. I should also mention the Age UK programme dealing with elderly people in my constituency. It is making a huge difference and ensuring that everyone becomes a dementia friend. Only through such actions will we bring about real change in our health care system.

Tom Blenkinsop: I wish to discuss two topics. First, I want to raise the issue of funding for the North East Ambulance Service NHS trust, the rising use and cost of private ambulances and other ambulance pressures, and secondly, I want to raise with the Minister the ongoing Monitor investigations into the two foundation trusts, the South Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and the Tees, Esk and Wear Valleys NHS Foundation Trust, that serve my constituents.
	Over the past 18 months, the A and E department at the James Cook university hospital, which serves my constituency, has come under considerable pressure. In particular, in the run-up to last winter, there were problems with handover times, with ambulances and paramedics waiting up to two and a half hours to admit patients, despite the national target time being 15 minutes. I raised this matter last year with the Secretary of State for Health, who agreed that the situation was completely unacceptable, and with the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter),in a Westminster Hall debate on A and E provision in the north-east on 13 February 2013.
	In addition to the issues I raised with the Secretary of State, it became evident that James Cook’s A and E department struggled to manage with the pressure that winter placed on it. In January and February, South Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust failed to meet its target of seeing 95% of A and E patients within four hours. With James Cook so clearly overstretched, I was surprised to discover in September that the Secretary of State decided not to award it, or any other hospital trust in the north-east, funding to alleviate pressures on A and E. It struck me as beyond belief that of the £250 million he awarded to 53 trusts, not a penny was to reach the north-east. Thankfully, following pressure
	from the Opposition, including in my Westminster Hall debate on north-east NHS services on 5 November, the South Tees trust is to receive £2.1 million, as announced earlier this month.
	For weeks and weeks, however, I have received recurrent expressions of concern about the increasing use of private and voluntary ambulances in response to 999 calls in my constituency. I wrote to the North East ambulance service about two of these incidents. From its reply, it became clear that central Government funding cuts were eroding the blue-light service. It wrote:
	“Each year we have discussions with our commissioners on the forecast number of incidents in the forthcoming year. The outcome of these discussions for 2013-14 were that commissioners felt it necessary to set our income on activity for the next 12 months at a level less than we were forecasting... So for 2013-14, we have been contracted to respond to 376,000 incidents, although we are forecasting activity at an estimated 415,000. This means that any incidents above 376,000 will be funded on a one-off basis rather than as recurrent annual income. These arrangements do not allow us to enhance our own workforce plan because the money for the additional activity will not be available next year to fund the extra salaries”.

Dave Watts: Is there not an element almost of secrecy taking over the NHS, with trusts not allowed to talk to MPs or tell them the facts and trusts’ financial details not being published? Does my hon. Friend agree that that is not healthy for the NHS?

Tom Blenkinsop: For that reason, I had to put in a freedom of information request to the trust to get the information I shall now detail.
	According to that letter, our ambulance service will see more cuts, more private ambulances and possibly a less responsive service. It is not me saying this, but the chief operating officer of the North East ambulance service. In 2008-09, private ambulances attended 865 call-outs in our region, costing £86,118. In 2009-10, there were 1,816 call-outs, costing £151,112. In 2010-11, however, there were 6,429 such call-outs, costing £477,575. In 2011-12, there were 9,034 of these call-outs, costing £639,819, and in 2012-13, there were 13,524 call-outs of private and voluntary ambulances, costing £754,461. Since Labour left office, therefore, a fivefold cost increase in private ambulances has occurred in the north-east—these are funds going to private contract firms. It is obvious that from 2010 onwards an explosion of private ambulance usage by the trust has occurred, costing a huge amount of taxpayer funds. As the chief executive states:
	“These arrangements do not allow us to enhance our own workforce plan because the money for the additional activity will not be available next year to fund the extra salaries, overheads and vehicles we need to meet the extra demand.”
	The police and crime commissioner for Cleveland, Barry Coppinger, has said:
	“The bottom line is that police officers are not medical professionals and should not be put in the position of having to transport patients to hospital. Police vehicles are unsuitable and unequipped; it not only puts undue stress on the patient, but also the officer who should be able to continue to fulfil policing duties on the ground… The downward trend in incidents from September to October relates to a policy change by senior officers”—
	not the NHS—
	“within the Force and a directive issued that officers should not transport patients to hospital unless there is an immediate risk to life. However, there have been five occasions in November of officers being forced to take patients for urgent medical treatment due to ambulance delays.”
	I hope for a response from the Secretary of State or a Health Minister. I would be more than willing to talk to them about this subject, because it is a massive concern, particularly in the east Cleveland part of my constituency.

Andrew Percy: There is doubtless concern on both sides of the House about A and E and the health service in general, but there is also more than an ounce of political opportunism, some of which we have heard today. Not once did we hear any reference made to the Nicholson savings, which have put local acute hospital trusts under huge pressure, with £160 million taken out of the budget for the Humber area alone.
	If we talk to the chief executives of the hospitals, we find that they say that it is not top-down reconfigurations or policy changes since the general election that have placed them under such pressure, but the Nicholson savings. I know that there is cross-party support for those savings, but we should all be as honest as possible in this place and ensure that we all accept a degree of responsibility for that challenge and the funding that it has taken out of our acute trusts, resulting in pressure on A and E departments—not just this year, but last year and in future years.
	As I say, there is a huge degree of political opportunism going on about the NHS. It is clear that the Labour party has decided that this is going to be an issue at the general election. In my own constituency, the very people who stood silent when our hospital was losing its beds, when we were losing our hospital wards, when all our mental health beds were being taken away from us—these were the people who represented the town for the Labour party—now suddenly find themselves standing up and pretending to be NHS campaigners. The public see through it—and I am sure they will at the next election, too.
	Similarly, we have heard not a single apology from any Labour Member about the 50,000 beds cut under their Government. We have heard a lot about how people turning up at hospital often find that there are not enough beds, but not once did a Labour Member defend the 50,000 hospital beds lost when their party was in government. That tells us all we need to know about the reason for this debate and for the general comments we have heard about the NHS recently. It is all about political opportunism; it is about the next election. I am sorry that our hard-working staff in the NHS—I work with them every weekend when I volunteer as a community first responder—are being placed in the middle of a dirty political game.
	In my remaining minute and a half, I would like to talk about a couple of examples from my constituency that are helping to address the problem.

Alex Cunningham: Does the hon. Gentleman have the same problem in his area as we have in Stockton-on-Tees, where GPs tell me that people are being denied registration because their lists are unofficially being closed? If that is happening across the country, surely it is no wonder that there is unprecedented pressure on A and E departments.

Andrew Percy: The Montague medical centre in Goole had to close its lists down, but if we ask why, we find that it was due to the large uncontrolled immigration we had from the A8 countries. [Interruption.] That is a fact. That is why the lists had to be closed—due to the previous Government’s failure to plan for the number of people coming here—so I thank the hon. Gentleman for that helpful intervention.
	Let me deal with a couple of issues in my own constituency. [Interruption.] If Labour Members want to intervene, I am happy to take an intervention rather than be chuntered at. I want to refer to some positive moves locally, which I hope can be rolled out nationally.
	First, I called on the NHS ambulance trust in my area to provide advanced paramedics, so that we could use our ambulance service better—a point I have made through the Health Committee—not just to convey people, but to treat them in their homes. We established an emergency care practitioner in Goole, which in the first six to eight weeks saved 56 double-crew manned hours and numerous transfers to Scunthorpe A and E. That has proved to be an effective use of our ambulance services, and I hope that we can start to see it moving through. [Interruption.] Am I running out of time? I am just looking at the clock, Madam Deputy Speaker, and following the time indicated there. I will conclude if the Front Benchers need to sum up—

Eleanor Laing: Order. The hon. Member is quite right in his watching of the clock, but I am sure that he will have a mind to other hon. Members who wish to speak this afternoon.

Andrew Percy: Because it is Christmas, I am willing to forgo my remaining minute.

Andrew Gwynne: We have had a good debate, with many powerful contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh),for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), for Eltham (Clive Efford), for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins), for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) and for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop).
	I have to say, however, that people outside listening to some Government Members’ contributions will think that they simply do not get it. They simply do not understand how hard it is to get a GP appointment; they do not understand the real issues facing their own local A and E departments; and they do not understand the pressures hitting the NHS in England. I politely suggest that they do what the shadow Health team has done—and go and spend an evening at their local A and E to see for themselves the real pressures that departments serving their constituents are under.
	It would be remiss of me not to place on record my own tribute to the doctors, nurses, health care assistants and other dedicated NHS staff who—as I found out myself when I visited Tameside hospital’s A and E department last Friday night—provide such extraordinary and professional care. We have a work force who are completely dedicated and caring, but the House should be in absolutely no doubt that they are under increasing pressure, and that this is a crisis of the Secretary of
	State’s making. The Secretary of State may wish that Labour Members had short memories, but we remember the summer news reports of ambulances queuing outside hospitals with unacceptably long waits, and some people even having to be treated in tents erected in car parks, while the Secretary of State and his Ministers buried their heads in the sand and the Secretary of State’s “Crisis, what crisis?” strategy unravelled. Labour Members highlighted those problems, as would have been expected of us .
	What we are seeing in A and E is also the culmination of three and a half years of mismanagement of our NHS, with a needless top-down reorganisation and the waste of billions of pounds that could and should have been spent on front-line care. It is little wonder that, as we discovered last week, 79 A and E departments missed the Government’s own targets.
	As we have heard in the debate, the reasons for the crisis are many and complicated, but it is on the lack of access to GPs’ services that we have focused today. Surely no amount of spin can hide the fact that this Government have made it harder to obtain an appointment to see a GP. All Members will know of constituents who have had to phone their doctors only to be told that no appointments are available and that they should ring back the next day, which they do, only to experience the same problem again.
	Is it not obvious to all—except, seemingly, the Secretary of State and his Ministers—that many patients who phone the surgery at 9 am and find it impossible to obtain an appointment will turn to A and E for help? That is not just my conclusion. According to an analysis carried out for the Department of Health, 42% of A and E attenders had attempted to contact their GPs beforehand, and researchers at Imperial College London found that patients who were able to see their GPs within 48 hours made fewer visits to A and E departments.
	Here are some inconvenient truths that the Minister and other Government Members need to consider. First, by the time Labour left office, 98% of patients were being seen within four hours at A and E departments. Secondly, by May 2010 more than three quarters of the general practices in England offered extended opening hours at weekends and in the evenings. It is also clear that Labour’s achievement in widening access to primary care is being undone on this Government’s watch: data released by the Health and Social Care Information Centre have revealed that 854 fewer general practices now offer extended opening hours than was the case in 2009.
	The truth is that now, during evenings and at weekends, many people are left with no alternative but to go to A and E because of this Government’s actions. It was this Government who cut funding for extended opening hours for GPs’ surgeries, it was this Government who scrapped Labour’s guarantee that patients would be able to obtain an appointment with a GP within 48 hours, and it is this Secretary of State who shows not one degree of regret for those actions: actions that have piled more unnecessary pressure on A and E departments and more misery on patients, at the very time when they need the NHS to help them.
	No wonder things are going so wrong so quickly. To put it simply, under this Secretary of State and under this Prime Minister, it has become harder, not easier, to see a doctor, and as a result more people are heading
	towards A and E. What more evidence do Ministers need that A and E departments in England are under real pressure and that action is needed now to prevent them from struggling further over the winter months? Their confusion has been laid bare today for all to see. In three weeks, they have gone from “Crisis, what crisis?” to “The crisis is behind us.” It does not sound as though the Secretary of State is in control; people will struggle to take reassurance from his mixed messages. The problems in A and E have the fingerprints of the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister all over them. The components of the A and E crisis might be complex, but the real cause is very simple: you just cannot trust the Tories with the national health service.

Norman Lamb: We have heard a lot of scaremongering about the NHS today, including endless claims about a crisis. If the Opposition are thinking about new year’s resolutions, I have one for them: stop misleading and misinforming the public. Let us look at the evidence.

Andrew Gwynne: rose—

Norman Lamb: I will not give way; I do not have time.
	Up until this week, A and E targets were met in the past 32 weeks in a row. Is that evidence of a crisis? The average wait for people in A and E during Labour’s last year was 77 minutes; it is now 30 minutes. Is that evidence of a crisis? Even though more people are coming through the doors, 2,000 more patients are being seen in less than four hours every day under this Government than under Labour. Evidence of a crisis? I don’t think so. The Opposition are scaremongering, plain and simple. In fact, the College of Emergency Medicine’s president, Cliff Mann, has today said that any crisis in accident and emergency is “behind us”.

Andy Sawford: May I associate myself with the remarks made by the hon. Members for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) and for Wellingborough (Mr Bone)? We are pressing for funding to meet the additional demand in the Kettering accident and emergency department. Will the Minister encourage us in that?

Norman Lamb: I applaud the cross-party effort of those Members campaigning for their community, and I am very happy to engage with them further on that matter.

Andrew Gwynne: rose—

Norman Lamb: I will not give way again; I do not have time.
	Last year, of the 21.7 million people who visited accident and emergency departments, almost 96% were admitted, transferred or discharged within four hours. Target achieved. So far, it is the same this year: target achieved. The right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) missed his A and E target in two of the three quarters when he was in charge. Did he go around telling everyone that there was a crisis at that time? No, of course he did not—

Several hon. Members: rose—

Eleanor Laing: Order. The Minister is not giving way. He has limited time, and we will hear him.

Norman Lamb: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	The then Secretary of State, now the shadow Secretary of State, missed the target in this very week when he was in charge. We know that the winter is tough, and that performance always dips at this time of year. We also know that the staff are under a lot of pressure. The truth is that we inherited a dysfunctional system that was crying out for reform, with too many people ending up in hospital because of crises in their care, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee) made clear. For years, I have argued the case for a different approach.
	We are supporting the NHS to enable it to manage better in the short term. For this winter, we are investing an additional £400 million in total—more than ever before. In the longer term, we need to look afresh at how we organise urgent care. That is why Bruce Keogh’s report into urgent and emergency care is so important, and I hope that the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) will accept the case for a clinically led review in order to achieve the right approach. We will work closely alongside NHS England in putting these reforms into practice. The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) was absolutely right to say that we have to communicate better with the public and ensure that the process is a good one.
	In the longer term, we need to do more to prevent people from ending up in hospital as a result of avoidable crises. As my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George) said, we need to make two big shifts. The first involves a move to a much greater focus on preventing ill health and the deterioration of health. The second involves a shift from a fragmented system to one that is integrated and joined up. That is the approach that we must follow.
	Integrated pioneers around the country, such as those in south Devon and Torbay, Greenwich and Labour-led Barnsley, are doing great work, joining up care, collaborating with the voluntary sector, providing better care and keeping people out of hospital. That is the vision of the health service for the future. These pioneers will help the rest of the country to make the best possible use of the £3.8 billion better care fund. The fund will encourage organisations: to act earlier to prevent people from reaching crisis point; to offer seven-day services; and to deliver care that is centred on people’s needs. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow) for welcoming that important new fund. We are also introducing named, accountable GPs for the over-75s and improving access to general practice.
	We are addressing both the short-term and long-term challenges, giving the NHS the support it needs. I want to genuinely thank the excellent staff throughout our health and care services who are tackling these issues head-on. The measures and changes we have outlined today will support staff to deliver the best possible care, even in the most difficult of circumstances.
	Question put.
	The House proceeded to a Division.

Eleanor Laing: I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.
	The House having divided:

Ayes 242, Noes 307.

Question accordingly negatived.

Food Banks

Eleanor Laing: It will be obvious to the House that a great many Members have indicated that they wish to speak in this debate. It will also be obvious that the time available is very limited. I will therefore have to impose an initial time limit of four minutes on Back-Bench speeches, but I must—[Interruption.] Order. I must warn hon. Members that if everybody takes four minutes, plus the time allowed for interventions, only about a third of those who wish to speak will be able to do so. One would hope that Members, out of consideration for others, might take less than four minutes where at all possible.

Maria Eagle: I beg to move,
	That this House notes that the number of people using foodbanks provided by the Trussell Trust alone has increased from 41,000 in 2010 to more than 500,000 since April this year, of whom one third were children; further notes that over the last three years prices have risen faster than wages; further notes the assessment of the Trussell Trust that the key factors in the rising resort to foodbanks are rising living costs and stagnant wages, as well as problems including delays to social security payments and the impact of the under-occupancy penalty; calls on the Government to publish the results of research into foodbanks commissioned by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which Ministers promised would be made public in the summer of 2013; and further calls on the Government to bring forward measures to reduce dependency on foodbanks, including a freeze on energy prices, a water affordability scheme, measures to end abuses of zero hours contracts, incentives to companies to pay a living wage and abolition of the under-occupancy penalty.
	I welcome the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Wirral West (Esther McVey), who has been put up to speak for the Government in this debate. Despite Ministers repeatedly stressing that
	“food banks are absolutely not part of our welfare system”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 2 July 2013; Vol. 746, c. 1071.]
	it is regrettable that the Department with lead responsibility for food in our country, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, has not felt it appropriate to provide a Minister either to open or to close the debate.
	Is there a more damning indictment of this Government’s record than the number of people who now rely on food aid in this country? Since April this year, over half a million people have relied on assistance from the 400 food banks run by the Trussell Trust, which is double the number of food banks compared with this time last year.

Robert Halfon: I am hugely grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. Why did her Government refuse to allow jobcentres to give out food bank vouchers? It was this Government who changed that. May I also—[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.

Robert Halfon: May I also mention to the hon. Lady—[Interruption.] They do not want to hear the truth, Madam Deputy Speaker. Why is it—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should make a brief intervention, but it must be heard by the House. He may now make his intervention, but briefly.

Robert Halfon: Why has there been a huge rise in the number of food banks in Germany and France, and across Europe? In France, one in 88 people are fed by food banks, yet in the United Kingdom the figure is one in 181.

Maria Eagle: The hon. Gentleman first asked me why the previous Government did not refer people who needed assistance to food banks. In a parliamentary answer in September, his own Government said that Jobcentre Plus only signposts people to food banks and does not refer people to them or issue vouchers, so there is no difference whatever.

Gerald Howarth: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Maria Eagle: No. Let me make it clear that I will not take many interventions because of the number—[Interruption.] I am seeking to give hon. Members in all parts of the House a chance to get into the debate, and it will not help if I take three quarters of an hour to open it.

George Howarth: rose—

Maria Eagle: I will take one more intervention before I continue.

George Howarth: As a fellow Knowsley MP, does my hon. Friend agree that it is a disgrace that, from April to 13 November, 756 children and 1,424 adults were referred to food banks with vouchers? We congratulate the agencies involved in doing that work, but is it not absolutely disgraceful that this is what we are reduced to?

Maria Eagle: I agree. My right hon. Friend and I share food bank provision in our constituencies, so I know that to be true.
	Since April this year, over half a million people have already relied on assistance from the 400 food banks run by the Trussell Trust charity—that is double the number of food banks compared with this time last year. Of those half a million people, one third are children. In Britain, the seventh richest country on the planet, in the 21st century, it is a scandal, and it is getting worse. More people have been going to food banks in the past nine months than in the whole of last year. Half a million people have gone to food banks compared with 26,000 before the last general election.

Andrew Bridgen: rose—

Andrew Selous: rose—

Gerald Howarth: rose—

Maria Eagle: I will give way to the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth).

Gerald Howarth: I am most grateful to the hon. Lady. She seems to be placing responsibility for all this at the door of the coalition Government. Is she aware that the excellent food bank in Farnborough was established in 2009 as the 49th Trussell Trust food bank? Does not that illustrate that it was the destruction of the public finances by her party in government that has been responsible for the disaster that is affecting this country?

Maria Eagle: I agree that some food banks were established before the last election, but 400 have now been established by the Trussell Trust, rather than 49. By the time we left office, 40,000 people were visiting food banks, a tenfold increase on the 4,000 at the start—

Andrew Bridgen: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Maria Eagle: No.
	There are now half a million people visiting food banks—an exponentially larger figure. It is right that this House seeks to find out the real cause of that increase. It is a scandal that is getting worse. The Government now have the humiliation of the Red Cross helping to collect and distribute food aid in Britain for the first time since the second world war.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Maria Eagle: I will give way once more to an Opposition Member.

Fiona Mactaggart: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way; she is under a lot of pressure. I want to inform her and the House that not only are people depending on food banks, but poor people in Slough are now fighting each other in the local Tesco when discount vegetables and fruit come out. A constituent texted me yesterday to say that he observed such fights on three separate occasions and that Tesco now has to put on security to deal with the issue. Is that not shocking in the 21st century?

Maria Eagle: That is shocking. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House will appreciate that I want to leave the longest possible time for them to be able to highlight such experiences in this debate, so I will not take further interventions.
	Although the rise of food banks is not something that anyone can be proud of, the huge volunteering effort to keep them going is something we should be very proud of. Communities are coming together in outrage and in sorrow at the growing poverty and hardship they see around them. Whether they are organised by churches, voluntary organisations or individuals, people have refused to stand by and watch their neighbours go without food. More than 30,000 volunteers are now giving their time. Others have donated, including more than 3,400 tonnes of food last year.
	The rise of reliance on food banks has angered people around the country. That is why more than 141,000 people have signed the Daily Mirror petition demanding this debate—a debate the Government could have held in their own parliamentary time, but chose not to.
	Let us be clear about who is now relying on food aid in this country. Although in the past it may well have been those who were homeless, or at least those without an income, that is increasingly not the case. In fact, just 4% of people turn to food banks due to homelessness, while 19% of referrals have been as a result of the Government’s changes to welfare and more than a third are down to the incompetence that has led to delays in payments to which people are legitimately entitled.

Alun Cairns: rose—

Andrew Bridgen: rose—

Maria Eagle: I have made clear that I am not giving way, because I want to maximise the amount of time available to others to get into this over-subscribed debate.
	The majority of people turning to food banks are working-age families. Nearly a fifth are in work, but they are still struggling to get through the month. As the Trussell Trust’s executive chairman, Chris Moulds, said
	“2012-13 was much tougher for people than many anticipated. Incomes are being squeezed to breaking point. We’re seeing people from all kinds of backgrounds turning to foodbanks: working people coming in on their lunch-breaks, mums who are going hungry to feed their children, people whose benefits have been delayed and people who are struggling to find enough work. It’s shocking that people are going hungry in 21st century Britain.”
	He is right.
	The Government have tried to claim that the growth in food banks is a case of supply and demand. Lord Freud, the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, suggested that the rise was down to people seeking out food because it was free. He said:
	“by definition there is an almost infinite demand for a free good.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 2 July 2013; Vol. 746, c. 1072.]
	Yet everyone who receives food from a food bank is referred there by a front-line organisation and, therefore, verified as being in a crisis situation.

Andrew Selous: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Maria Eagle: No.
	To suggest that people can just arrive at a food bank asking for free food shows how out of touch Ministers are with the way food banks work. [Interruption.]

Eleanor Laing: Order. I cannot hear the shadow Minister, but she is speaking perfectly clearly. There is too much noise in the Chamber. Members should have the courtesy to listen to the hon. Lady moving the motion.

Andrew Selous: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I believe that the hon. Lady may have inadvertently misled the House by saying benefit delay was rising when it is actually falling by 6%.

Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that that is a matter for debate, and I have no doubt that he will be able to put that point later in the debate. The more time we spend on points of order and on me quietening people down, the less time there will be for Members to make the points they wish to make.

Maria Eagle: To suggest that people can just arrive at a food bank asking for free food shows just how out of touch Ministers are with the way food banks work. The Trussell Trust is very clear: over 50% of referral agents are statutory agencies, and referrers include doctors, social workers, school liaison officers and citizens advice bureaux advisers. These professionals make sure that people turning to food banks are in genuine crisis.
	People are using food banks not out of choice, but out of necessity, yet Ministers still refuse to listen. The Education Secretary has claimed that people are turning to food banks because
	“they are not best able to manage their finances.”—[Official Report, 9 September 2013; Vol. 567, c. 681.]
	How insulting, patronising and out of touch is that comment.
	There is a very straightforward way for Ministers to clear up any doubt about the reasons for the increase in reliance on food aid: they can finally publish the official report into the growth of food banks, which was delivered to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in June. That report has now been sat on by Ministers for six months, longer than it took to produce. In April, the then Minister of State at DEFRA, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath), said:
	“The conclusions of this work will be available in the summer and published on the Government's website.”—[Official Report, 23 April 2013; Vol. 561, c. 821W.]
	Now Ministers say the report is still being subjected to
	“an appropriate review and quality assurance process.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 November 2013; Vol. 749, c. 1293.]
	I bet it is. It is very clear that the Government are determined to hide the true scale of the growth of food banks. They are right to be embarrassed by the truth, but they should come clean, so I say to the Minister today that she should finally force her fellow Ministers in DEFRA to publish this report.
	Even without the Government’s hidden report, the reasons for the rise in food bank use is clear: it is the cost of living crisis facing householders up and down the country; it is because even as we finally see some growth in parts of the economy after three years of failure, that growth is not being shared fairly. Last week’s Office for National Statistics figures were clear: average earnings have risen by less than the rate of inflation for the fifth year running. Figures published alongside the autumn statement showed that real wages will have fallen by 5.8% by the end of this Parliament. Under this Government, we have seen the longest period of falling real wage values since records began, and the consequence is that working people are £1,600 a year worse off under this Government.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Maria Eagle: No.
	Many are paid poverty wages.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: rose—

Maria Eagle: No.
	The number of those paid less than a living wage is up by 1.4 million since 2009, to 4.8 million workers in the UK last year—[Interruption.] No, I have been very clear that I am not giving way again in this debate. [Interruption.] As pay packets shrink in real terms, prices continue to rise, and they rise faster than wages. That has happened for 41 of the—[Interruption.]

Eleanor Laing: Order. I do not understand why there are conversations going on all around the Chamber. [Interruption.] I can see where they are taking place. If Members are here to take part in the debate, they must listen to the hon. Lady who is proposing the motion.

Maria Eagle: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	As pay packets shrink in real terms, prices continue to rise, and they are rising faster than wages. They have done that for 41 of the 42 months that this Prime Minister has been in Downing street.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Maria Eagle: No, I will not give way.
	Let us just take the weekly shop. It is the essentials that have gone up in price the most—food required for a balanced diet. Fruit: up 11.3%. Vegetables: up 6.9%. Meat: up 5.2%. Bread and cereals: up 4.3%—all up by more than inflation. We know from DEFRA’s own annual family food statistics, published last week, that families on the lowest incomes spent 22% more on food in 2012 than five years ago. Those families were already spending the largest share of their income on food. The consequence is that families have been forced to trade down, with a third switching to economy brands. A quarter of those on low incomes are now buying less fresh fruit, with one in five families buying fewer fresh vegetables, which means poorer nutrition for many children.
	Not only food prices but household bills have added to the cost of living crisis. Energy bills are up almost £300 for families since the election, while company profits have gone from £2 billion to £3.7 billion. More than 2 million homes in England and Wales, including more than half a million families with children, have been forced to spend more than 5% of their household income on the cost of water. Yet the regional water companies have made £1.9 billion in pre-tax profits, and paid out £1.8 billion to shareholders.

Alun Cairns: rose—

Duncan Hames: rose—

Maria Eagle: I have made it clear why I am not giving way.
	For those with children, the rising cost of child care is making it harder and harder to take on work. The cost of nursery places is rising five times faster than pay, while there are 35,000 fewer child care places and 576 fewer Sure Start centres. Most perniciously of all, the Government’s bedroom tax has increased the pressure on 660,000 people, including more than 400,000 disabled people, yet the vast majority do not have a smaller place to move to. The average family affected is now losing £720 a year.
	This debate is a vital opportunity for the House to acknowledge the rising reliance on food aid in our country. We ensured that it took place, because the Government were never likely to do so. They will not even publish their own—clearly damning—research into why the rise in food bank usage is so high. Since April, just one charity’s network of food banks has helped half a million people, a third of whom were children. The reasons for that are clear: the rising cost of living, caused by rising prices that have outstripped falling and stagnant wages; the Government’s unwillingness to stand up to vested interests in the energy and water companies; their unwillingness to take action on the lack of available hours for part-time workers, the rise of zero-hours contracts and poverty pay; incompetent welfare reforms and delays in making payments; and the bedroom tax.
	Britain can do better than this. We need a long-term plan to tackle the cost of living crisis and reduce dependency on food banks, including a freeze on energy prices while we reset the market, a water affordability scheme and tough new powers for Ofwat to cut bills, measures to end the abuses of zero-hours contracts, Make Work Pay contracts that reduce company’s tax bills to incentivise
	them to pay a living wage, an expansion of free child care for three and four-year-olds from 15 hours to 25 hours a week to help working parents, and the abolition of the bedroom tax. That is how we, a one-nation Labour Government, will address the scandal of food poverty in our country. That is how we will once again reduce and then remove the need for food aid and the reliance on food banks in our country.

Esther McVey: I welcome this debate to answer honestly the points made in the motion and to clarify all this, but to be honest, a far more realistic debate would have been brought by Government Members and the people of the United Kingdom on how Labour derailed the UK, destroyed its finances and made it such a vulnerable place.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Esther McVey: I will continue a little, because the truth must be heard.
	While Labour was in office, it gradually wore away the financial strength of this country, eroding its savings and savings culture, and then it crashed the economy. Gas bills doubled, council tax doubled and fuel duty went up 12 times. The only things that grew under Labour were debt and overspending. It left the UK with—[Interruption.]

Eleanor Laing: Order. This is not a football match. Do not shout at the Minister. She will give way when she is ready.

Esther McVey: It is only fair that I set the scene before taking interventions.
	Labour left the UK with the highest structural deficit of any major advanced country. It wiped £112 billion off the economy, leaving a debt of about £3,000 to every household. Personal debt reached a staggering £1.5 trillion. That whirl of living beyond our means—that increase in prices, debt and unaffordability—had to come to a stop. It came to a stop suddenly and, sadly, we are all paying the price. The Government are paying the price, charities are paying the price, businesses are paying the price and individuals are paying the price as we try to balance not only our household budgets, but the budget of the country. [Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. There is no point in having a debate if nobody listens to the person who is speaking. Be quiet.

Esther McVey: As I have said, I will take interventions when I have set out what has happened.
	Let us be honest. The Trussell Trust saw what was happening in 2000. It looked at the evolving problem that was caused by personal debt, overspending and people living beyond their means. It set up the first food bank in that year and the food bank network in 2004. The number of food banks had grown tenfold by 2010. Most startlingly, when those food banks started, Labour did not want to know why. When they grew tenfold, Labour did not want to know why.
	When the Labour councillor who had set up the Trussell Trust came for support and said, “Allow me to signpost food banks in Jobcentre Plus,” Labour said no. Labour wanted it to be their little secret because, beneath the veneer of what seemed like a sound economy, it was crumbling. It knew what was going to happen. Sadly and shamefully, there has been no investigation by the Opposition. They do not want to know what went on. It took my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) speaking to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to get the food banks signposted.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Esther McVey: Now that I have set the scene, I give way to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell).

Catherine McKinnell: My constituency office took a phone call from an ex-serviceman yesterday who is now thankfully in receipt of a war pension, disability living allowance and employment and support allowance. However, while he was waiting for four weeks for Atos to deal with his appeal, he had to use a food bank. Does the Minister agree that that is an absolute disgrace?

Esther McVey: We have hardship payments and support payments. We have put in a new element of reconsideration to make the process quicker. The speed of the transaction for getting benefits has increased by six percentage points.
	Let us not get away from how this started under Labour. What each and every one of us does is important. I have heard nothing from Opposition Members about the news that, because of our welfare-to-work programme, 30 million people are in jobs today. We know that under Labour, the number of households with nobody working doubled—[Interruption.]

Eleanor Laing: Order. There are too many people standing up. The Minister is not taking interventions at this point. Allow her to make her speech.

Esther McVey: In Labour’s last term in office, the claimant count went up by 82%.

Andrew Selous: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Does she remember that the Trussell Trust thanked this Government for allowing jobcentres to refer people to food banks? That was a compassionate thing to do and the Labour party refused to do it.

Esther McVey: My hon. Friend makes a very good point, and I will also give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow who negotiated that arrangement.

Robert Halfon: I am hugely grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way and to the Secretary of State for changing that disgraceful ruling by the previous Government. Will the Minister praise Harlow food bank, which was set up in 2009 after the years of plenty? Does she agree it is sad that food banks are being turned into a party-political football by Opposition Members who are trying to destroy the excellent work they do?

Esther McVey: I do indeed. If one thing came out of the disastrous years that made our country more vulnerable because of the disastrous finances of the Labour Government it was the fact that not only are this Government doing more to get people into work—I will say it again, although I heard no positive sounds from the Labour Benches before: there are 30 million people in work—and that businesses have helped to support people and have taken them on, but that the community has come together to support one another. That must be a positive move. [Hon. Members: “ Give way!”] No, I will make a little more progress.
	Let us go back to the report that Labour obviously did not want, so as to keep it as its little secret. Labour Members did not want to look into why the Trussell Trust was set up and has grown exponentially, but we did. We looked into the matter, and it is right that we give an accurate report. It was the Labour party that brought us the dodgy dossier and never wanted verification of the facts—why let the facts get in the way of a tale of fiction? It is only correct that we get our facts right and deliver this report at the right time, as we are doing. As we have said, it is positive; people are reaching out to support others in church groups, community groups, local supermarkets and other groups. That is a fact—[Interruption.]

Eleanor Laing: Order. We cannot hear the Minister.

Esther McVey: In the UK, it is right to say that more people are visiting food banks, as we would expect. [Hon. Members: “ Give way!”] No. Times are tough and we all have to pay back the £1.5 trillion of personal debt, which spiralled under Labour. We are all trying to live within our means, change the gear, and ensure we are paying back all the debt that we saw under Labour.
	It is important to look at what is happening around the world. The UK has a population of 63 million and 60,000 people are visiting food banks according to the Trussell Trust. In Germany, however, with a population of 82 million, there are 1.5 million users of food banks. Canada has population of 35 million, and there are 830,000 monthly users of the Trussell Trust. [Interruption.] We must put everything in context and look at what happened, whether that is the overspending and not being able to balance the books from 2002, or the financial crash of 2007. [Interruption.] We must look at how much we have done to balance and rebalance the economy, and get it on a stable footing.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. [Interruption.] Order. The House should pause for a moment, calm down and listen to the Minister. Everyone will have a turn to make their point in due course. [Interruption.] Order. I call the Minister.

Esther McVey: It is startling that the shadow Minister took only three interventions. We all listened then, so it would be appropriate to listen to the facts now. That is where we go wrong. We do not listen to what is going on.
	The coalition Government were brought in to solve the mess that Labour got us in. Nothing more clearly shows what we have done to support people than what we have done on jobs. The best way to help people to get out of poverty is to get people into work. Children are
	three times more likely to be in poverty if they are in a workless household. Labour is the party that gave us workless households.
	I will say this again because the Opposition still have not acknowledged it. Thirty million people are in jobs today. That means that a further 1.25 million people are in jobs since the general election. The Opposition told us—[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. If hon. Members do not keep quiet and listen to the Minister, she will have to repeat her speech over and over again—[Interruption.] Order. If the House keeps interrupting me, I will call order again and again, and very few hon. Members will have the chance to make the speeches they have prepared. Let us have silence. I call the Minister.

Esther McVey: We have 1.25 million more people in jobs than we had at the election. We know that the best way out of poverty is to be in a job. The Opposition said that 1 million more people would be out of work. They were wrong. They said there would be a double-dip and treble-dip recession. They were wrong. They are also wrong on food banks.
	That is why we must compare Labour’s legacy of a debt-fuelled boom with what this Government have done. What are this Government doing and how have we supported people? Under Labour, 5 million were on out-of-work benefits, the number of households where nobody worked doubled, and 2 million children lived in workless households. That is what we do not want—[Interruption]—but it is Opposition Members who say, “Shame.”
	How are the Government helping families? We want to ensure that work always pays. That is why we have brought in universal credit—to ensure that 3 million people are better off. That is what the Government are doing.
	Let us be honest. One thing the Opposition do not understand is that disposable income is different from income. What have we done to support people with disposable income?

Several hon. Members: rose—

Esther McVey: The Opposition spokeswoman gave way three times. We will finish what we are saying. I appreciate that Back Benchers will have only four minutes, but, should there be time, I will give way.
	What have the Government done? We have taken 2.7 million people out of tax. We have cut tax for 25 million people, giving them, on average, £700 extra a year. We have stopped Labour’s fuel and petrol price increases, saving families £300 and someone in a business with a van £1,000. All of that is key. The winter fuel allowance and cold weather payments have stayed, and we have given tax breaks to young people who are going to be in a job. That is what we have done to support people. When we talk about what happened under what Government, what happened when and how the Trussell Trust started, and when we talk about the removal of the spare room subsidy—[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Members must not shout at the Minister. It is clear that she does not intend to give way, and she is not going to give way if you
	shout at her. Please be quiet, allow the Minister to finish her speech and then everyone will have a chance to make their contribution.

Esther McVey: The Trussell Trust started under Labour—they hid that away—and the removal of the spare room subsidy in the private sector started under the Labour Government in 2008. Rewriting history does not work. The British public want to know the truth: those on the Labour Benches ruined the economy and we are getting it back on track.

Sheila Gilmore: I am very grateful to the Minister. On the one hand, she has spent a long time telling us that there are now many more people in work, although the rate of employment has still not returned to pre-recession levels. But if —[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady must be brief, but she must be heard.

Sheila Gilmore: If everything is going so well, why since 2010 has there been such a substantial increase in the number of people using food banks? The only explanation can be the Government’s changes to welfare policy.

Esther McVey: Tomorrow, when Hansard comes out, we can read the full explanation, because hon. Members probably do not want me to go through it again. Actually, it was because of the crash, the overspend, the personal debt and the public debt left to us by those on the Opposition Benches.
	Another issue that has been raised is zero-hours contracts. They happened under Labour: the numbers in 2013 are the same as the numbers in 2000. In fact, the number of zero-hours contracts went up by 75% from 2005 to 2009, something that those on the Opposition Benches did absolutely zero about. It is the Leader of the Opposition’s Doncaster council that presides over the biggest number, within his council. Again, there is a lot of fluster and a lot of bluster. The Opposition did nothing in government and they are doing nothing to control their Labour councils, yet we are now picking up the pieces.

Christopher Pincher: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has spoken eloquently about the price of Labour. Is she aware that in 2009 one could walk down Glascote road, where my food bank is situated, and see repossession notices in window after window as house after house was taken away by banks that foreclosed on them? The grisly legacy of that lot was not just a loss of jobs but the loss of homes too.

Esther McVey: The Opposition like to forget all about that. The industry I know most about is probably the construction industry, which was brought to its knees in 2007 under the guidance of those on the Opposition Benches. Many industries had a tough time pre-2010. That is when it all happened. Equally, the Opposition are so bad with numbers they do not understand that there needs to be a change of gear to rebalance an economy and change things to get back on track. It does not happen overnight; it happens over a long period of time. Something to ponder on for a second is
	that it was the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), who said that the Opposition want to be tougher on benefits and do more than we are doing. I wonder how Opposition Members feel about that and whether they believe that use of the Trussell Trust would be higher or lower were that to happen.
	I will come to a close now. [Interruption.] Sadly, there is chanting from the Opposition. I find how the Opposition left this country—in a vulnerable position—a really sad moment. [Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Hon. Members will allow the Minister to conclude her speech.

Esther McVey: For the people of the UK, I find that deeply saddening. For me, it is not something to be chanting and cheering about. The Opposition need to reflect—for about the next 20 years—on what they did to UK plc, while we get it right. For those reasons, and many, many more—mainly its inaccuracy—I reject the Opposition day motion. Instead, I welcome the promising signs that we are delivering for jobs and growth: the fastest growth in the G7 this quarter, more people in work, more businesses going, more exports, more work for everybody. That is why we object to the motion and welcome what we are doing on this side of the House.

Tom Clarke: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Given the huge interest in this debate, not least among our constituents, is it within your power to extend the time for the debate?

Madam Deputy Speaker: I fully appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s point. Another way to phrase it would be: if Members had behaved with decorum during the Front-Bench speeches, would there be more time for Back Benchers? He is right that there is a lot of interest in the debate, but sadly it is not within my power to extend the time available. I am glad he made his point of order, however, because it gives me the opportunity to ask hon. Members to be courteous to other hon. Members and keep their speeches as brief as possible.

Paul Murphy: Perhaps I can bring the House back to the issue of food banks. I decided to take part in this debate only last Friday, when I visited the Eastern Valley food bank in Pontypool in my constituency and saw its excellent work with my own eyes. It distributes more than a tonne of food per week and feeds more than 120 local families, and demand is so great it has opened three distribution centres in Blaenavon and Cwmbran. Like many food banks in this country, it is linked to the Trussell Trust, to whose Welsh representative, Tony Graham, I pay tribute.
	That situation is replicated throughout Wales, which now has 33 food banks and 74 distribution centres. In the UK, three open every week.

Brian H Donohoe: I have visited most of my food banks, but there are so many of them that it is very difficult. Has my right hon.
	Friend noticed, like me, the type of person turning up at these food banks? I saw a woman who was a skilled worker—a draughtswoman—who could not get a job and had not had one for four years as a result of the Government’s policies. Did he see anybody like that?

Paul Murphy: Indeed I did. I also saw that many people using the food bank were working people who simply did not have sufficient money to feed their families.
	The Minister spent some time trying to decide who caused the recession, but in 2010—the year the Government came to power—more than 4,000 people in Wales got food from a food bank. In 2011, it went up to 16,000; to 36,000 in 2012; and in this year, it is estimated that 60,000 people in Wales will have to rely on food banks. That is the population of my town, Cwmbran, the fifth largest town in Wales. That is a disgraceful indictment of society and of what the Government have—or have not—done.

Madeleine Moon: Some people have to go to food banks because of the problems they have with their benefits. On one occasion, a constituent came to see me, having been assessed for their personal independence payment by Capita six months previously, yet had still not had that assessment passed on to the Department for Work and Pensions because of Capita’s failures. Other constituents have waited more than four months. There are serious failures in the benefit system.

Paul Murphy: We know that in 2010, in Wales alone, 13% of those who went to food banks did so because of problems with the welfare and benefits system—and that has gone up to 20% today. That is the reality, but there are other reasons, too. It is, of course, also a matter of electricity, gas and water prices, and the price of food has gone up dramatically over recent years. What is to be done about it? The first thing we should do is properly tackle the issue of the cost of living.

Alun Cairns: When it comes to increases in the cost of living, what contribution does the right hon. Gentleman think is due to the increases in council tax in Wales? There has been a 9% increase over recent years in Wales, yet it has been broadly flat in England.

Paul Murphy: It is nothing like the effect of the cost of electricity and gas on people’s incomes, that is for sure. We have to abolish the bedroom tax, which is a huge issue affecting the need for food banks, and in the meantime I hope people will continue to donate and volunteer.
	The truth is that food banks show the best and the worst in our society. Local people in my valley have stepped up to help—Jen Taylor and her excellent team of volunteers have offered their time to help feed people and to give them hope. Churches, charities, offices, shops and individuals have donated huge amounts of food to supply the food bank.

Chris Ruane: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the churches in Wales have played a fantastic role in collecting food? In my constituency, the Deva church, the Calgary church, the Catholic churches in Rhyl and Prestatyn and the Wellspring Christian centre in Rhyl are all contributing.

Paul Murphy: I think the churches in Wales have done a tremendous job, often taking the lead right across the United Kingdom in dealing with food banks. The people involved are occasionally rewarded. I was told the story of a little girl in Pontypool in my constituency, who excitedly told a lady that she would have chocolate fingers for Christmas because the food bank was there and had given them to her. That is a very moving story.
	The key issue is what an indictment this is. I have been a public representative in my constituency for 40 years, and I have never seen anything like this, other than during the time of the 1985 miners’ strike, when the people of my valley got together as a community to help each other. This is happening again now in a big way, but I never thought that this would happen again in my lifetime. It is an indictment of our society and an indictment of our Government.

Laura Sandys: The Minister gave an important description of all the different measures we have taken to support those who face the greatest challenges with poverty and low incomes. We are not here—I hope that the Opposition are not—to celebrate food banks, which are not the answer. They must be seen not as a solution or as something that we want institutionalised, but as a transitional support mechanism for families in stress at particular moments. Opposition Members sometimes seem to relish the number of food banks. If they would mention some of the key reasons for the perfect storm hitting those on low incomes and benefits in particular, we might start to arrive at solutions.

Steve Brine: I agree with my hon. Friend that there is a “relish” about this on the Opposition Benches. Is it not the case that, in her constituency as in mine, food banks did not come into being in May 2010? Next year I shall be reading at the 10-year anniversary service for the Winchester Basics bank. The fact is that food banks have been around for a long time.

Laura Sandys: My hon. Friend is quite right.
	Let us return to some of the reasons that lie behind the present situation, few of which were mentioned by the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle). Food prices began to rise in 2008, and since then global commodity prices have risen by 30%. Much of that happened under the last Government. During our first couple of years in office, we linked pensions to inflation and the rise in the cost of living.
	We need a solution to the problem of rising global food prices. Why, in 2010, did the proportion of our domestic food production—which would have hedged our exposure to global prices—drop to 48%? This Government are working to increase our food resilience and our long-term food production.

Mark Pawsey: Is it not rather disappointing that the one group of people about whom we have not heard today are the general public, who donate so generously to food banks? Ought we not to express our gratitude to them?

Laura Sandys: I entirely agree. There are extraordinary people—committed volunteers—in my constituency.
	Poorer families in my constituency also face structural poverty. Some families in private rented accommodation have no cookers and are captured by microwaved food, condemned to eat expensive food with no resilience, while others have to feed families of three or four with only one ring on which to cook. We must do something about the quality of our private rented accommodation.

Stephen Doughty: The hon. Lady is raising some very interesting issues. However, I have been told by the Trussell Trust in Cardiff that half the people who have been referred to a food bank in the last six months were referred because of changes or delays in social security payments, unemployment, debt, low incomes, homelessness or domestic violence. Is the hon. Lady not surprised that Ministers are not willing to take a shred of responsibility for that?

Laura Sandys: That is not so, but the point is that there are numerous background issues for us to address, including education. Where was food education on the agenda before this Government included it in primary school education? It is now at the heart of citizenship. We think it important to build, in the long term, resilient families who can support themselves during a period of change and rising food prices.
	Finally, let me say something about the food sector itself. I have campaigned strongly against what we are now seeing throughout the retail sector: shrinking products, promotions that are not really promotions, and even the selling of horsemeat, which is an example of food crime. I urge the Government to set up a cross-departmental taskforce to examine the issues involved in food poverty and develop a resilient set of policies to address the problem that food banks are creating. We need to improve housing and our skills base, and enable the food system itself to support communities throughout the country that are finding prices difficult to manage. We have a wide range of volunteers in the food sector who are supporting food banks in the short term, but we must start looking for long-term solutions. I wish that the motion had focused more on the long term and the strategic problems that we face, and less on short-term tactical politics.

Jamie Reed: I regret to say that the laughter from some of those on the Government Benches during this debate says more than words ever could. I want to praise the work of those in my constituency who are doing so much to help those in need. The commitment of the volunteers in the food banks throughout Copeland and across west Cumbria in towns such as Whitehaven, Millom and Workington has been remarkable, and I should like to say thank you to them on behalf of my constituents. I also want to thank those who donate the vast amounts of food, without which the food banks simply could not operate.
	The final verdict on any Government is based on how they treat the poorest in society during the hardest of times. The rise in the need for food banks is a horrifying indictment of this Government’s record, and it demands urgent action. The complacency of those on the Government Front Bench and of Ministers in the other place is as distasteful and unedifying as anything I have
	ever witnessed in Parliament. In July, Lord Freud seemed to suggest that the increase in the number of people using food banks was simply a result of the increased prevalence of the food banks. He claimed that he did not know which came first: supply or demand. He also claimed that there was an infinite demand for what he called “free goods”. In order to access the services of a food bank, a person or family needs to be referred by health services, local authorities or other groups that look after their welfare. I am not going to try to second-guess what was going on in the Minister’s mind, but he seemed to be implying that there was somehow an ambition to reach hardship, and a desire and aim for people to reach poverty in order to get a free basket of shopping to get them to the end of the week.
	To better inform the parties opposite on how food banks actually operate, I shall give them a quick rundown. People who are forced to turn to food banks can receive help only a limited number of times. They go to the local food bank not to do their full weekly shop but because they need the bare essentials in order to get by. Many of those people will already have made extremely difficult decisions, such as whether to sit in a cold room rather than go hungry. There is no more harrowing example of that than the fact that one in five mothers in the UK regularly—not just once or twice a week—skip meals in order to be able to feed their children.

Jim Cunningham: Can we deal once and for all with one particular issue? It is partly right to say that food banks have been around for about 10 years, but the truth of the matter is that the Churches set them up to help refugees who were waiting for their asylum status to be confirmed.

Jamie Reed: My hon. Friend makes a telling point.
	The circumstances in which people have to seek assistance to feed themselves and their families are not usually simple. They often involve a combination of issues, which manifest themselves in a great deal of pain and pressure for those involved. For example, I have constituents who are cancer patients who are forced to use food banks as a result of various combinations of Government policies. I wish I could say that those were isolated cases, but they are not. I wish I could say the situation was improving, but it is not. There are no signs of things getting better.

Robert Flello: In the past year and a half, more than 100,000 kg of food has been distributed in the small city of Stoke-on-Trent alone. My hon. Friend talks about the people who go to food banks. Has he seen, as I have, people who are absolutely on their last legs because they are so desperate? Many people who go to food banks are also embarrassed that they need such help.

Jamie Reed: I have indeed seen that, and it suggests that we are seeing only the tip of the iceberg in terms of the numbers of people who need the services of the food banks. Compared with last year, about 600 more people in my constituency are now using food banks to ensure that they can eat. That brings the total to 1,778, including almost 700 children. That is truly shocking, and it is the policies of the parties opposite that have led to this huge growth in the number of people needing help.
	It is no coincidence that the wards in my constituency with the highest rise in the number of children being fed through food banks correlate with the wards with the highest rates of child poverty. For example, 41% of the children in the ward of Sandwith are now living in child poverty, and 234 of them rely on the generosity of those who donate to food banks. In Mirehouse, a third of the children are in poverty and more than 200 of them rely on food banks. Child poverty and the use of food banks are inextricably linked, yet the Government have no credible plan to tackle either.
	We have repeatedly warned the Government that the legacy of their policies would be felt most keenly by the most vulnerable in our society. The very poorest are bearing the brunt of the cost of living pressures that the Government’s various regressive policies have created, and the consequences are there for all to see. There is a hidden country that is unseen by the Government and dismissed by the Prime Minister, and it shames them both. The working poor are emerging as the Prime Minister’s legacy, as millions of people live in quiet crisis. The explosion in the number of food banks should haunt him, shame him and move him to act, but I doubt that it will.

Steven Baker: The quality and quantity of welfare produced by the state has not been good enough for a very long time. It is astonishing and shaming that the welfare state can tax and spend so much, and yet leave people hungry. Some 12,000 children in Buckinghamshire live in income poverty, and one in five children in Wycombe go to bed hungry—that increases to one in three in some parts of my constituency. It is a scandalous indictment of the safety net that is the welfare state that this happens. But I am proud of the One Can Trust, run by Sarah Mordaunt, Kate Vale and more than 100 volunteers in Wycombe, which steps in with emergency food when the state fails.

Alan Beith: A mistaken impression has been created in this debate that all that food banks do is distribute emergency food. What they actually do is give financial advice and debt advice to people who have got into difficult situations—emergency food is only part of what they do.

Steven Baker: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that, and indeed the One Can Trust also provides recipes which help people to get through and use that food effectively. The One Can Trust has delivered 2,859 parcels since March 2012, reaching 3,182 adults and more than 2,000 children—without the trust, poverty in Wycombe would be truly desperate. It operates five pick-up centres, has eight sessions at which people can pick up food and usually delivers within 24 hours. The trust enjoys support from the Big Yellow Self Storage Company, and has matched funding from Barclays and Santander. Warm drinks are provided to volunteers by Starbucks, and the Eden shopping centre provides parking for volunteers. This is an astonishing exercise of social power, and I am very proud of what the trust is doing, particularly because of the story of one young boy.
	This is a young boy who about 33 years ago, at the age of eight or nine, bounced down the stairs because his loving father called him down for his tea. This boy
	bounced joyfully down the stairs but thought it was funny, in his youthfulness and his childishness, to poke the fried egg and say, “Ugh, what’s that?” At that point, his father, with his great working man’s hands, picked up that plate of food and slung it straight in the swing bin, bellowing, “All right, we will both go hungry.” That was my father, a working man who had reached the end of the money and the end of the food. I did not mean to wound my father then, nor do I mean to wound him now, because he loved me and he loves me still. My father did absolutely everything he could, but where was the welfare state? It was not there for him, because it did not know what to do for an independent, self-employed man who had run out of work.
	Unfortunately, that went on and on, to and fro, in the legacy of the previous Government; it was tough for a self-employed builder. My father coped by finding further work. My mother took on two and even three tough jobs. I saw her get arthritis in her hands, ageing her early, all because there was no food. What happened eventually is, of course, that they divorced, and my mother went on to live with a man who could at least put food on the table. So I certainly know the consequences—I live with them today—of having too little food in a home.
	I am therefore proud of the One Can Trust, because in times of crisis it feeds families. I like to believe that had food been available in my home when I was a child, not only would my father not have had to go hungry, but perhaps my mother would not have had to take on those jobs, perhaps they would not have divorced and perhaps a range of things that ought not to have happened but which did would never have taken place. I am very proud indeed that at this time people across our nation are stepping up where the state is falling that little short. However, I must ask: what is the cause of the crisis? The cause of this crisis—

Susan Elan Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Steven Baker: I will just make this point. The cause of this crisis has been pretending that there is some magic wand: that prices can be declared to be lower; that wages can be declared to be higher; and that if only Labour Members were on the Government Benches the state would be responsive and in times of crisis would quickly leap in. That is not true now, it was not true 33 years ago and it will not be true in the future. It is essential that things such as food banks step in, but I am encouraged by things such as the community store, which go further and make this kind of mutuality and co-operative approach—this charitable endeavour—much more sustainable by making inexpensive food available to the working poor.
	I will leave the final word to the chairman of One Can Trust, David Rooke. He has said:
	“David Cameron has got it exactly right. Society needs to be empowered to step up. That’s what The One Can Trust is all about.”
	I am proud of it.

Jessica Morden: I was e-mailed last Friday by a woman in my constituency who asked me to attend this debate. She said:
	“I would ask if you could attend to represent the poverty and daily struggle that can be found in our area. I am writing as a former user myself of the food bank which at the time was a life-saver for me. At the beginning of this year, the DWP sanctioned me for six months due to an administrative error, which I did not ever receive a written apology for. I had to live on £27 a week for six months until my support worker found out and helped to get me back on my feet. I am not a waster or a shirker but having to receive food parcels because you have nothing in your cupboards is embarrassing for anyone. I also know people who work as hard as they can but because of low wages can’t manage.”
	That was powerfully put. If the Minister listens to nothing else today, I hope she listened to that.
	It is fair to point out that food banks are not new in this country. When I was elected, there were two in Newport—the Ravenhouse Trust and the King’s Church—and they did an amazing job.

Alison Seabeck: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. Is she slightly shocked, as I am, that there is not a single DWP or DEFRA Minister now sitting on the Front Bench?

Jessica Morden: I thank my hon. Friend for that valuable intervention, which speaks volumes.
	The difference is that, back then, when I first went to meet volunteers packing food hampers, the number of people receiving them was much smaller. Predominantly, in that dispersal area, the people receiving them were asylum seekers, people with drug and alcohol problems and homeless people. I am glad that the food banks were there, because those recipients were badly in need of our help. However, there are now four food banks operating around Newport; recently, we were joined by the Caldicot food bank and the Trussell Trust. That now has four satellite distribution centres. In Newport, there is a mixture of independent and Trussell Trust food banks. They all work together and they all say exactly the same thing: there has been a phenomenal increase in demand over the past year or two. They have seen a large number of working families on low incomes in need, and a marked increase in referrals from the DWP and jobcentre staff because of the bedroom tax, sanctions and other benefit changes.

Natascha Engel: The food bank in Chesterfield that opened six months ago has reported that 50% of people presenting to the food bank are there because of benefit changes and benefit sanctions and because the DWP has really messed up. In what way is that not the responsibility of the DWP and the Government, who are actively forcing people into food banks?

Jessica Morden: My hon. Friend is right. I wish there were a DWP Minister present so that they could hear her point.
	The depressing Wales-wide figures from the Trussell Trust show that, in 2010-11, it supported 4,070 individuals in Wales. This year, just from April to November, it has supported 44,756. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy) said, it expects that figure to rise to 60,000 by the end of the financial year. Those figures are from the Trussell Trust and do not include figures from the independent food banks.
	The unmistakeable message that I have been told time and again is that there has been an explosion of working people using food banks. Unemployment may
	be down, and I definitely welcome that, but the use of food banks by working people has dramatically increased, which should tell the Government something.
	Whatever the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions says, the truth is that the proportion of people using food banks as a result of benefit changes is sharply increasing. The Government have shamefully—and it is shamefully—altered the form used by Jobcentre Plus staff when referring clients for food parcels by taking off the tick box that records that they are referring them because of benefit changes. No wonder the Secretary of State can play down the fact that benefit changes are driving the increase in demand—he has stopped his staff collecting the data that prove it.
	I thank all those involved in food banks for the work they do in my constituency, not least our churches, which are also running night shelters, and the street pastors. They should be praised for the work that they do. I also thank King’s church in Newport, which partners with FareShare to reduce food waste and feed people at the same time, and businesses such as Newport Bus, which has been collecting for Ravenhouse this Christmas.

Madeleine Moon: Does my hon. Friend also wish to thank those people who are donating to the food banks? Today, my office took a phone call from someone who said that they had won a food hamper in a raffle. They cannot eat that food knowing that people are starving, so they are taking the hamper to a food bank.

Jessica Morden: I thank my hon. Friend for her valuable contribution. We should thank those who give to food banks.
	However raucous the debate and however characteristically chippy the Minister's response, it is worth reminding ourselves about the people behind the figures. Two young boys came into a Newport food bank recently with their social worker and asked whether they could have one packet of cereal and one packet of drinking chocolate as a treat. Sad stories, real lives.

Stephen Mosley: At the end of last month, I was privileged to visit the West Cheshire food bank in my constituency. Like all food banks, it is run by a group of hard-working volunteers and supported by generous donations from across Cheshire. My visit to the food bank was an opportunity not just to see the fantastic volunteers who make it happen but to hear first hand the reasons people are using food banks. The results were striking. Figures from my local food bank show that 59% of those who have used the food bank since April have visited because of changes to benefits and a growing number of people are visiting because of sanctions.

Ian Murray: The hon. Gentleman mentions his food bank. The food bank in my constituency, run in a joint venture by the Trussell Trust and Blythswood Care, has seen a six times increase in the number of people using it this year alone, mainly due to benefit changes. The Government will not listen to us on the benefit changes, but, given the wonderful
	start to his speech, will he put pressure on his Ministers, who have been deplorable in this Chamber this afternoon, to make them see sense and make changes so that people do not starve this winter?

Stephen Mosley: I shall come on to that point.
	The Department for Work and Pensions is the front-line organisation dealing with people in that position and that is why I support wholeheartedly the Government’s decision to allow jobcentres to advertise and refer people to their local food bank. That is also why it was such a big mistake for the previous Government to ban jobcentres from referring people, depriving people of the information they needed to get food at times of emergency.
	Let us make no mistake about it: food banks were not created by, for or because of this Government. They predate the Government, they predate recent welfare changes and they reflect deep long-term problems with our benefits system. As the majority of people who need food bank assistance are those who face changes to benefits, the clear long-term solution is a more joined-up benefits system. The solutions proposed by the Opposition in their motion do not tackle the root cause of the problem. They are short-term sticking plasters that merely cover up the cracks in the welfare system. We need a long-term solution to fix the problem once and for all.

Stephen Timms: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman can help us with a puzzle. When the Government took office, Ministers perfectly properly made a lot of the announcement that in the future jobcentres would be able to refer people to food banks. However, that appears now to have changed. I received a written answer from the former Minister, the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr Hoban), which states:
	“Jobcentre Plus …does not refer people to food banks or issue vouchers.”—[Official Report, 4 September 2013; Vol. 567, c. 373W.]
	Can the hon. Member for City of Chester (Stephen Mosley) help us to understand why there has been that change?

Stephen Mosley: Jobcentres offer signposting and advice and point people in the right direction. Unlike Opposition Members, I think that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions knows what the problem is. That is why he is pushing so hard for universal credit, which will transform welfare, solving many of the issues that still haunt our welfare system and that we have heard about today.
	As well as the long-term solution of universal credit, there are some short-term actions that we can take. First, we need to find out more about food banks and I back the call from the Trussell Trust and my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) for an inquiry into their use. We need a clear picture of the role and extent of the banks and we need to know who uses them and why. Then we can have a debate based on the facts. Otherwise, this important debate will always run the risk of being hijacked by politicians hoping to score cheap political points, which does absolutely nothing to help those in need. The university of Warwick has produced a report for DEFRA on household food security and the provision of food aid. I hope that it will be forthcoming.
	Secondly, I am a passionate believer in school meals. In my constituency I have seen the real difference that providing a hot, nutritious meal every day can make for children. I therefore congratulate the Government on introducing free school meals for infant pupils. By opening up free school meals to all children, we can put nutrition first.
	Finally, we need to give food banks the support they need. Too often people suggest that we should be ashamed of food banks, but I disagree. Food banks play a key role in a caring society. Dozens of people in my constituency volunteer at the Wesley Methodist church and hundreds, if not thousands, donate food. I am proud that so many Chester residents want to help their neighbours and local communities when they are in need. I offer my heartfelt thanks to everyone who helps the West Cheshire food bank. They are doing a truly fantastic job.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Derek Twigg: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it a discourtesy to the House that the two Work and Pensions Ministers who have responsibility for this debate have not been in the Chamber for some time, and neither has any DEFRA Minister, even though the debate is on food banks?

Mr Speaker: The organisation of the Bench rota by the Government is a matter for Ministers to decide. I note that the hon. Gentleman regards it as unusual, and that view might be widely shared, but it is not within the power of the Chair to change the situation, even if the Chair were minded to do so. It is beyond my physical powers. Perhaps we can leave it at that.

Gerald Kaufman: It is disgraceful that the junior Minister, having made one of the nastiest Front-Bench speeches I have heard in my 43 years in this House, has now sloped off and not bothered to listen to the views of the House.
	Last Sunday I attended a carol service at New Covenant church in my constituency, where a leaflet of activities distributed to the congregation read,
	“Food bank to alleviate poverty among the unemployed and low income earners.”
	The previous Sunday I attended a carol service at St Chrysostom’s, also in my constituency, at which Canon Ian Gomersall always makes an appeal. In previous years it has been about alleviating poverty abroad—helping a Romanian orphanage, for example. Last Sunday he made an appeal for food for hungry people in the area around the church. He said that the prospect was that there would be soup kitchens—soup kitchens in my constituency! He is not political, but he felt that he had to say that to a crowded congregation.

Andrew Selous: I share the right hon. Gentleman’s concern about the issue, but does he realise that in Germany, a country that is much richer than ours, 6 million people use food banks every month?

Gerald Kaufman: My constituents who are going hungry do not study the foreign affairs pages. They want to know why, after three and a half years of this
	appalling Government, they have got no food, so the hon. Gentleman should not make silly and useless debating points.
	The Salvation Army has sent around an appeal stating:
	“In the present economic climate, many families will struggle to feed and clothe their children, let alone afford presents and treats.”

Angus MacNeil: Is the right hon. Gentleman not detailing the symptoms of the massive inequality in our society? Professors Stiglitz and Krugman have detailed how the gains of productivity have gone to the top 1%. We are living in the fourth most unequal society in the OECD. Successive UK Governments have failed to address that, which is one reason why I want Scottish independence, but that argument is for another day. What he is seeing in his constituency is the result of the massive inequality that blights society.

Gerald Kaufman: The hon. Gentleman is of course absolutely right.
	The information provided for me by Tesco, which is conducting food banks in my constituency, tells the whole story. It refers to
	“Tesco’s third National Food Collection”,
	which means that within this Government’s period in office it has started to help to address food poverty, and to
	“32,000 thousand shopping trolleys…the equivalent of 4.3 million meals.”
	That is Britain today.

Chris Ruane: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Gerald Kaufman: Will my hon. Friend allow me to continue for just a moment?
	In my constituency we have widespread poverty and deprivation. Today’s unemployment figures show that we are No. 42 for unemployment out of 650 constituencies. This has not come about by accident. It is the direct result of this Government’s policies: the deliberate creation of unemployment, the bedroom tax, which is causing so many people to suffer, the benefits cuts, and the housing shortage. My city has been hit hardest of all the major cities by the Government’s cuts. We are having redistribution from the poor to the affluent.

Sharon Hodgson: Last week I visited Kids Company in Southwark and saw the industrial-scale packing of food bags that were then piled into vans and delivered to vulnerable families across London. When I asked Camila what had changed in the past few years, she said that she is still seeing the same number of abused kids but is now getting hungry kids coming to her directly because they are starving. Does my right hon. Friend think that is a damning indictment of this Government?

Gerald Kaufman: My hon. Friend makes a very powerful point. If I may say so, as powerfully as she made it, it was made much more powerfully by St Matthew, who said in his gospel:
	“Unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.”
	That is the precise policy of this Conservative-Liberal Democrat Government. I note that the only Liberal Democrat Member of Parliament for Manchester has not even bothered to turn up to this debate. That will be noted by his constituents.
	At our Gorton Philharmonic concert at Christmas, we sing “Have yourself a merry little Christmas”. Well, it will be a little Christmas for a lot of people but it will not be merry for many more.

Roger Williams: I am pleased that this debate has entered a calmer, cooler stream, because I felt very uneasy that some of the most vulnerable people, such as those I have met in my constituency, were being used as a political football across this Chamber. They would not have wanted that. They often feel a sense of indignity about going to food banks. They feel that it is in some way their own fault, but in many cases it is not their fault at all. I look to Members on both sides of the House to come forward with considered ideas about how we can best address this matter.

Fiona O'Donnell: May I give the hon. Gentleman one suggestion? Why do not his Government meet the Trussell Trust to try to understand the causes of food insecurity instead of refusing to do so?

Roger Williams: I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. [Interruption.] I am being encouraged to say that the Government intend to meet the Trussell Trust. I am pleased about that.
	Food banks have come rather late to my constituency, but I really welcome them. I went to the New Life church in Llandrindod Wells and was very impressed by the number of volunteers who were working there. They were members of the church and other volunteers who had gone there particularly to distribute food. I then went on to Tesco. I do not often compliment Tesco on its work, but on this matter it was doing very good work indeed. The church had a stall near the store’s exit and people were encouraged to donate some of the food they had bought. I was overwhelmed by the generosity of people—some of whom were on low incomes themselves—who were prepared to give a little away in order to help others. Tesco also made a 30% contribution.

Duncan Hames: I share my hon. Friend’s sentiments in relation to the food banks I have visited. Does he agree that, even though food banks came to his constituency more recently, during each of his 16 years in this place, in good times and bad, there will have been constituents who would have benefited greatly from the availability of the services of food banks if they had been there at the time?

Roger Williams: I have not quite achieved 16 years, but that is my intention if I am successful at the next election.
	My hon. Friend is right. I am sure that every hon. Member will agree that it is not just lately that people have come to our surgeries because they have had problems with their benefits and find themselves in
	desperate and dire circumstances. Before the food bank was established in my constituency, I had no organised place to refer people to; I had to find churches or philanthropists to help them to get out of trouble and to get them through it. At least now I can direct them to somewhere they will get help.

Tobias Ellwood: On benefits, does my hon. Friend agree that the best way out of poverty is through work? Is it not also the case that the perverse incentives of the dog’s dinner of a benefits system that we inherited mean that someone who gains part-time work could end up worse off than if they stayed on benefits?

Roger Williams: I agree that getting into work is the best way out of poverty, but work is not always available for people. I am sure that hon. Members know of such experiences.

Ian Lavery: But does the hon. Gentleman not agree that a lot of people who are claiming food parcels from food banks are actually in work?

Roger Williams: I am sure that is the case. I am trying to respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood). I believe that the current benefits system is not fit for purpose and that this Government are making progress to make it better, but there is still a huge amount of work to be done. The conditionality of so many benefits leads to difficulties. In my constituency, Jobcentre Plus seems to be using different criteria in different towns to impose sanctions on people. Obviously, when sanctions are imposed, people are left in great difficulty.

Sheila Gilmore: As a member of one of the governing parties, what is the hon. Gentleman saying to Ministers about that sanctioning disaster?

Roger Williams: I have already written to a Minister and I am going to meet them to find out why the sanctions in different jobcentres have different criteria; why they have different systems for writing to and contacting people in order to encourage them to attend meetings; and why, if people do not attend those meetings, they get sanctioned.

Albert Owen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Roger Williams: No, I will not. I am terribly sorry. I would have, but I have almost run out of time. I have been very generous.
	I think that this country needs a food policy. Huge spikes in food prices add to the difficulties faced by people trying to budget. We need a system to ensure that we have a secure supply of food with levelling prices.
	This coming week I will meet the pastor of Elim church in Brecon and I hope we will be able to work with that church to set up our second food bank. I will do so with a heavy heart, but I know it will provide really good help for my constituents.

Mr Speaker: In the spirit of Christmas, I say to the hon. Gentleman that there is nothing so striking as a Member busily congratulating himself on his own generosity.

Frank Field: Government Members have often cited the use of food banks on the continent, and in my short contribution I want to suggest two things. The first is that there are now movements in western economies that are disadvantaging the poor and we need to think of solutions to that. Secondly, I want to suggest to the Government where their policies have made this position much, much worse. We may not yet understand the basic forces to which we may want to apply policies, but the Government could raise questions about their own policies and ask how they are impoverishing people. I hope the reason for the absence of the whole of the DWP ministerial team is that it is thinking about what sort of reply it is going to give to this debate, with these possible concessions in mind.
	Fifteen months ago the Trussell Trust said that by the general election it would be feeding half a million of our constituents. I asked the Prime Minister at Prime Minister’s Question Time what he was going to do to prevent that prediction from coming true. I did not get a comprehensive answer, to put it mildly. We have learned from today’s debate that that point has already been passed a year and a quarter, or a year and a third, before that general election, and the number will continue to increase.
	If we look at the data, we find that in our country the proportion of income the poor now have to spend on food, utilities and rent is rising. I think that gives us an answer to Lord Freud, who said that if we supply a free good, people will turn up and claim it. It might be that if people are worried about not being able to meet their rent or that their electricity will be cut off, and there is the possibility of people giving them food, they will take that opportunity so that they can meet other basic requirements from their budget.

Mark Lazarowicz: The figures for food banks are only the tip of the iceberg, of course, as there are many other locations to which people go to get free food, such as soup kitchens. They have also seen a big increase in attendance over the last few years, and that is part of the picture as well.

Frank Field: I totally accept that point and I am going to come back to it by talking about how inaccurate our data are on this whole issue, but the House needs to take into account that something very important is going on in our economy which is disadvantaging the poor the most.

Gerald Kaufman: Hear, hear!

Frank Field: I do not think my hon. Friend actually knew Friedrich Engels, but Engels prophesied that as countries become richer, the proportion of income spent on food declines. That law has been reversed, so on that score something fundamental is happening. If we combine that with the changes resulting in a greater proportion
	of income now having to be spent on fuel and rent, we can see that that is difficult for many people, but it is a disaster for the poor.

Robert Halfon: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Frank Field: I will not because so many Members want to participate in the debate.
	These are the questions I would like to ask the Government. First, why are they so frit of having a serious inquiry into the causes of what is going on? Are food banks a passing fancy, or are they the outward visible sign of something very serious happening in our economy? We ought to get an answer to that. Secondly, if we listen to the food banks and the other bodies that are handsomely filling the ranks of those giving help in our society, they say the two things that are increasingly important in driving people to food banks are the sanctions regime and the sheer incompetence of the DWP in relaying benefits. Could the Minister—whoever it is and wherever they are—tell us how many of the exceptional payments the DWP is making are the result of benefit delays?
	Also, will a twofold instruction go out from this Government? First, will they ensure that anybody who has waited for more than a week for their benefit gets an advance on the benefit they are entitled to? No one is disputing that it will be clawed back later. That would abate some of the demand for food banks. Secondly, given what is happening to those people who are being sanctioned, where the sanctions are later overturned, will the Government urgently review how just their sanctions policy is?

Tony Baldry: Due to the time limit, I have had to reduce significantly what I intended to say, but I will ensure that a full version of my speech is put on my website.
	In following the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field), may I commend to the House the report published by the Church Urban Fund in September, entitled “Hungry For More: How churches can address the root causes of food poverty”, which can be found at www.cuf.org.uk/research? As part of their mission to the communities they serve and as part of their mission as the national Church, thousands of parish churches around the country play an active role in their local community, including by running food banks, the majority of which have been set up in the past two years. The report suggests that if churches are to contribute to a long-term solution to food poverty, there is a need to rebalance church-based activity away from emergency crisis support and towards long-term work that tackles the underlying problem.
	There is a policy conundrum that I think the whole House has to recognise. Food banks do not tackle the root causes of food poverty, and they do not aim to resolve any of the underlying problems of food poverty. I suspect that all right hon. and hon. Members would agree that we should view food aid only as a short-term emergency response to problems of food poverty.

Jim Shannon: The right hon. Gentleman is enunciating what food banks do, and they also give advice on how to recover from debt. Christians
	Against Poverty is an example of what food banks in Northern Ireland are doing. Does he recognise the good work that they are doing in advising people how best to manage their resources and how to get themselves out of the benefits trap?

Tony Baldry: The research in the Church Urban Fund report shows that some food banks do that, but not enough. Many of them simply give food aid, which is important, but we need to develop longer-term solutions.

Albert Owen: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Tony Baldry: I will make some progress.
	If the situation is to be resolved, the root causes need to be tackled. In April, an online survey was sent to 3,000 Church of England incumbents. In that survey, the Church Urban Fund asked clergy in parishes right across the country questions about their perceptions of food poverty and what was going on in their parishes. The respondents were invited to indicate what they considered the causes of food poverty, based on their experience of running food banks. These figures come to more than 100% because some clergy selected more than one topic, but 62% chose low income, 42% chose benefit changes and 35% chose benefit delays. As it happens, these three issues match those identified by the Trussell Trust as the most common reasons for food bank referrals last year. It is also worth noting that some respondents believed that individual behaviour was a contributing factor, with 27% selecting poor household budgeting as a significant cause of food poverty.
	Alongside others set out in the report, those results suggest that if churches are to contribute to a long-term solution to food poverty, church-based activity needs to be rebalanced away from emergency crisis support and towards long-term work to tackle underlying problems. In its recent report on monitoring poverty, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation has observed:
	“Making comparisons of people using food banks over time is not easy, as there simply are more food banks now than five years ago. They may well be meeting need that was previously going unmet.”
	However, there is obviously a need to look at the impact of benefit changes and, in particular, benefit delays.

Fiona O'Donnell: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Tony Baldry: If I may, I will make my own speech in my own time. I am conscious that many right hon. and hon. Members want to take part in the debate.
	I want to say a word of caution about all this. Whoever is in power after the next general election, public spending is going to be difficult. Indeed, as far as I can discern, all three main parties are agreed on public spending limits until at least 2016-17. Although the Labour party has opposed every single welfare change made by the Government, I do not think that the Opposition are suggesting that they would, if elected, significantly increase the overall welfare budget. In those circumstances, it is disingenuous to suggest that a future
	Labour Government would increase welfare spending, just as it is disingenuous to suggest that they would have the ability to control food and commodity prices.
	The Church of England has just embarked on a one-year joint research project with Oxfam, in partnership with the Trussell Trust and Church Action on Poverty, with the aim of exploring the reasons why people are using food banks and identifying interventions that would reduce the need for food banks. The findings will be published in September next year.
	It is not an adequate policy response simply to say that because people are using food banks, there needs to be a massive increase in welfare spending, particularly at a time when everybody is in agreement that the nation has to get welfare spending under control.

Hywel Williams: Thirty-three food banks operate in Wales and there are two in my constituency: one in Caernarfon and one in Bangor. In 2011, 11,000 Welsh people were dependent on food banks for limited help. The figure is now 60,000.
	People often go to food banks because their benefits have not been paid, as the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) said. There are mistakes, benefits are paid late and people are sanctioned, sometimes wrongly. A man came to see me on Monday who had been sanctioned and had no money. He had been called for an interview, but was not able to go because he had to take his seriously ill wife to hospital for cancer treatment. He could not be 30 miles away at the same time.

Ian Lavery: A gentleman in my constituency faced the same circumstances. He was sanctioned when he was in hospital for a heart condition. He lived for a further three days on field mushrooms and borrowed eggs. Is that what we want to see in the UK in 2013-14?

Hywel Williams: The hon. Gentleman makes an eloquent point about the harshness of the current system.
	Significantly, about 20% of the people who go to food banks are the working poor. They are not the scroungers and shirkers who are cited so enthusiastically by some hon. Members and by the popular newspapers.
	The growth of food banks in Wales is a symptom of a much more fundamental problem: growing inequality and the failure of wages and incomes to match the increasing costs of living, particularly food inflation. That is a particularly acute problem in Wales, where gross value added in some areas is about 60% of the UK average.

Madeleine Moon: Has the hon. Gentleman found that the working poor are finding it difficult to get basic products as well? My food bank has told me that people sometimes talk to staff quietly to ask whether they have toilet paper or sanitary products. It is not just food that people cannot get, but other expensive products.

Hywel Williams: The hon. Lady makes a fine point. I was at the food bank in Caernarfon recently. It provides a range of goods, and at Christmas it provides a few extras, which is very welcome.
	Food banks provide a vital short-term service and they deserve our support. However, they must not be a general long-term solution for the individuals who go to them and they must not be a permanent aspect of public policy. Food banks, if we have them at all, should supplement public provision. It is astonishing and shameful that, in the second decade of the 21st century, one of the richest countries in the world cannot ensure that its people get sufficient food.

Andrew Love: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise the importance of welfare benefits advice? We have heard that many food banks provide such advice, but many do not. Given that one of the reasons for the growth of food banks is the paucity of welfare advice, is that not an important consideration in this debate?

Hywel Williams: It is indeed. I pay tribute to the services that do exist, but they are patchy. Sometimes they are provided by local authorities and sometimes by volunteers. I mention in passing that the Child Poverty Action Group has made a pertinent point about the value of advice and the level of under-claiming, which is a persistent problem.
	In Wales, there has been a consistent decline in economic performance and in people’s ability to buy the food that they need. The figures are stark. Wales’s GVA per head compared with the UK average was 78.1% in 1997. In 2011, it was 75.2%. That is a decline of three percentage points. For west Wales and the valleys, which the European Union recognises as some of its poorest areas, the figures were 67.2% in 1997 and 65% in 2011—a further decline. This is a substantial historical problem, and it is growing. I am sure the remedies are easy to list, and we have heard some already: better economic growth, better income distribution, particularly in the poorest areas, a living wage, and ending fuel poverty.

Albert Owen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Hywel Williams: I must conclude my remarks; I apologise to the hon. Gentleman.
	We call on the Government to publish the report commissioned by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on food bank use, and also to commission further wide-ranging research into the rocketing need for food banks. I say to those on the Opposition Front Bench, however, that I cannot see how regional benefits would help.
	My final point is brief but important and has not been mentioned so far. Wales is not a unique case in the UK, and certainly not in the European Union. We must look beyond our borders and those of Europe, and fight to provide food security for people all over the world.

Alun Cairns: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing me to contribute to this welcome debate, which provides the opportunity to analyse the role of food banks, their background, and why they are growing at the reported rate. I am extremely disappointed, however, at how the debate has been proposed, and the way political capital is being sought from some of the most vulnerable people who genuinely need support.
	We need to analyse, understand and get to grips with the longer-term issues that have led people to need to turn to food banks. The tone of the debate, and the motion, undermines the good work that food banks do, and the excellent support given by very many volunteers who work hard for some of the most vulnerable people in our constituencies.

Anas Sarwar: Does the hon. Gentleman share my regret that, sadly, the Minister chose to make out that we should be grateful that more people do not have to go to food banks, rather than recognising that this debate is not about economic statistics but the fact that our fellow men and women in this country need to go to food banks to feed themselves? The tone of this debate is disgraceful and shameful.

Alun Cairns: I absolutely recognise that the tone of this debate is disgraceful, but the issues need to be analysed and addressed in an adult way so we can understand the longer-term issues that have got us to this position. That has not happened since 2010; the issue goes back well beyond that and must be addressed in a proper, adult, consensual way.

Brooks Newmark: Does my hon. Friend support the volunteers, and particularly Church groups in Braintree and throughout the country, who are doing a tremendous job in supporting food banks? On the point he has just made, this is a long-term problem and the inconvenient truth the Opposition will not accept is that there was a tenfold increase in food banks from 2005 to 2010. The problem did not begin in 2010, and we need a long-term solution.

Alun Cairns: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that powerful point, which gives me the opportunity to pay tribute to those who work and organise food banks in the Vale of Glamorgan: Coastlands Family church, Bethesda chapel in Dinas Powys, and Bethel Baptist church in Llantwit Major. For me, food banks play an extremely important role in bringing people back into the state system of support, or pointing them in the direction of the relevant charity that can help and support them to address an underlying long-term issue that has been missed, or the situation in which they find themselves.
	We must recognise that food banks and the Trussell Trust, which facilitates those in my constituency that I mentioned, rightly limit the provision they make available. First, people must have a voucher that comes from recognised body such as the social services, a GP, or a women’s aid or drug support group. People find themselves in terrible situations, often because of the breakdown of the family or changes that they simply have not been able to manage. We need to recognise that the food bank and the Trussell Trust give food provision for three days only. Food banks are not the soup kitchens that the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) has described. They rightly limit provision because they do not want to create that culture of dependency. They are about bringing those people back into the state support system and the charitable groups that need to address those problems.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Alun Cairns: I will give way in a moment. The limitations on the provision, which are rightly in place—

Lyn Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Alun Cairns: I will give way in a moment.
	The limitations in provision, which are rightly in place for that very good reason, mean that only three parcels can be distributed—

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. I fear the hon. Gentleman is not giving way. He has the floor.

Alun Cairns: Only three parcels can be distributed in a six-month period. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton spoke of soup kitchens. If his suggestion was right, there would be no such limitations. Our focus must be on getting people the right support from the right place. That might be from their MP, a charitable organisation, a local authority or the state sector.

Angus MacNeil: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that food banks and soup kitchens are symptoms of a structural problem, as the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) has said? From 1971 to 2011, productivity rose 80%, but workers shared only 10% of that. Income changed from labour to capital. The economist Paul Krugman has said that if that had not happened, workers would be better off by 30% or 40%. A fundamental, structural shift in society is causing those ills.

Alun Cairns: The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point, but given the regrettable limit of four minutes on speeches, I cannot address the structural economic debate over that period.
	I ask those who are responsible for food banks, who play an exceptionally important part that we should recognise, to refer information to their MP, first, because we might well be able to intervene if there is a benefit delay—we can help in some cases—and, secondly, because it is important information with which we can try to influence policy. However, when policy is debated and discussed in the way in which many Opposition Members have done, it undermines the credibility of the strong arguments that need to be addressed. Hon. Members might be in a positive position to intervene, and I am sorry the debate has progressed as it has.
	The background is longer-term economic decline. Thankfully, today’s unemployment data show we are turning the corner. That will make a significant difference. Those who are pointing the finger the most need to recognise that that decline has taken place over many years.

Jonathan Ashworth: I want to speak only briefly. The hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns) mentioned the tone of the debate. Many of my constituents will be disappointed that the Minister, who is back in her place, showed no contrition whatever for the acceleration of food banks on the Government’s watch. The issue is not whether food banks existed four or five years ago, but the sheer explosion in the number of food banks and demand for them in the past 18 months.

Andy Slaughter: My hon. Friend is right. I have an excellent charity, the Irish Youth Foundation, in my constituency. It is using its capital money to set up emergency food banks, and to provide emergency aid and relief for desperate young people who are going without food. That has happened as a consequence of this Government’s policies.

Jonathan Ashworth: My hon. Friend makes his point with great eloquence.
	Sadly, too many areas of my constituency appear too high up in the various deprivation statistics, and we have had an increase in demand for food banks. The Open Hands food bank in Highfields says it is doubling the number of food parcels it hands out. In the Saffron Lane area, there is an increase in the number of women going to food banks. Primary schools hand out food parcels to parents because they are too ashamed to go to the food banks on their estates.

Robert Halfon: No one denies that there is a problem, but does the hon. Gentleman not accept that the Government are doing everything possible to alleviate it? That is why they have introduced free school meals for children in the first three years of primary school and extended free school meals to poorer students who go to further education colleges. That is why they have frozen council tax and fuel duty, are trying to cut energy bills and are linking the basic state pension with earnings. Are those not real examples of how the Government are helping with the cost of living?

Jonathan Ashworth: The hon. Gentleman must recognise that there is a huge cost of living crisis because of the downward pressure on wages. Increasingly, people in work, and people on benefits, are turning up at food banks because of a series of social security cuts implemented by the Department for Work and Pensions. The food banks in my constituency report increased usage because of the bedroom tax, and not just for food parcels—people who have had to move into private rented accommodation but do not have the appropriate furniture are going to food banks that provide furniture. Food banks report increased usage because of sanctions, delays in appeals and delays in benefit decisions. The Atos centre in my constituency does not have suitable disabled access, so people on employment and support allowance have to go to either Nottingham or Birmingham for their assessment. They cannot afford to do that, so they end up going without the ESA they deserve and turn up at the food banks in my constituency. That is a sad indictment of the condition of Britain under this Tory Government.

Luciana Berger: Does my hon. Friend share my concern that figures released this week show an increase in diseases such as scurvy and rickets, and an increase in malnourishment? The Government should acknowledge that in the context of today’s debate. Frankly, it is disgraceful that we have not had a Minister from either of the main Departments sitting on the Front Bench for the whole of the debate.

Jonathan Ashworth: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point that is worth repeating: there is an increase in those diseases in 21st century Britain under this Tory Government.

Andrew Selous: rose—

Jonathan Ashworth: I am sorry to the hon. Gentleman, but I am not going to give way again.
	Of course, it is not just the food banks. I am proud to represent a tremendously diverse constituency, where all the gurdwaras report an increase in uptake by non-Sikh people who go to them daily for the food that they hand out. Our Muslim organisations and mosques are collecting food to be handed out in our food banks. For Government Members to say that that is all just a continuation of a statistical trend that has been going on for the past few years suggests that they are all completely in denial.
	The Minister, who is now shaking her head, boasted that the Government have commissioned a study and a review. I hope that when the Minister with responsibility for the voluntary sector, the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (Mr Hurd), responds to the debate—it speaks volumes that the Minister with responsibility for the voluntary sector will be responding to this debate, not a Minister from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—he will undertake to produce that study, so that both sides of the House can study it. I hope he will also tell us—I am sure the officials in the Box have the statistics—whether the Government, in their considered view, think that demand for food banks will increase or decrease in 2014 and 2015. That would be an interesting statistic and I look forward to the Minister outlining that in his summing up.
	We are seeing a series of changes to the way social security works from the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, who stumbles around Whitehall with a bleeding hole in his foot and a smoking gun in his hand as all his different reforms collapse—universal credit and so on. A whole series of changes are affecting our constituents and driving the increased demand for food banks in our constituencies. For the Government not to acknowledge that suggests that they are completely out of touch and completely in denial.

James Morris: The Black Country food bank in my constituency is a faith-based organisation that serves the whole of the black country area of the west midlands. It is run by an incredibly dedicated range of staff and volunteers. Having volunteered there myself, I know the focused way in which they approach serving the people who come to their doors. As other hon. Members have pointed out, food banks offer three days of emergency help. That means that the service the Black Country food bank provides is not a replacement for welfare; it is integrated within the welfare system itself.

Diane Abbott: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

James Morris: I will not give way, because many other hon. Members want to take part in the debate.
	The Black Country food bank gives food only to people referred to it by an approved agency, including social services. When I volunteered there, I met people who had been identified as suffering from serious mental health problems; I met women who had been victims of
	domestic violence and who had been abruptly removed, or wanted to be abruptly removed, from their homes; and I met victims of family breakdown. Every single person I met had been referred to the food bank with a unique set of circumstances.
	The Black Country food bank plays a vital role in fighting poverty in my constituency. It is true that usage of it has increased, but that is partly due to increased awareness of what it does. Inevitably, when people get to know that it is providing a vital resource, linked in with other agencies within the welfare system, they will start to use it more. Better links are also being created between food banks and local agencies. Local health services are aware that the food bank is on hand to help people who have serious mental health issues. As people are more aware of the vital service it provides, it is not surprising that its use has risen.

Richard Graham: My hon. Friend is paying handsome tribute to the Black Country food bank. Will he join me in paying tribute to his own food bank and many others, including mine in Gloucester, run by the excellent Anneliese Sterry and her volunteers, which provide a fantastic service for many people? My office hands out vouchers and appreciates the help they are giving.

James Morris: My hon. Friend makes a good point about the valuable work being done in his constituency.
	The Black Country food bank does other vital work in the community. Like the food banks that other hon. Members have mentioned, it helps families learn how to prepare cost-effective and nutritious meals. Such courses and information can have a greater impact in the medium term than the three-day supply of food it initially provides to those referred to it. Also, like other poverty-fighting organisations in my constituency, such as the Hope centre and the charity Loaves ’n’ Fishes, it provides vital work experience and apprenticeship opportunities for many people in my constituency, particularly those in long-term unemployment. That, too, is linked to jobcentres and the whole welfare system. Such organisations provide valuable skills and work, and not just on a voluntary basis; they provide real work experience and apprenticeship opportunities that are helping the local economy.
	The food bank is providing not just essential food support, but community facilities and skills that are vital to my local area. I agree with other hon. Members that to try and make political capital out of, and fight political battles over, groups such as the Black Country food bank and the work they do in my community is very disappointing. Those who run such food banks deserve our respect and support for the committed and dedicated work they do for some of the most vulnerable in my community.

Stephen Twigg: There is no desire among the Opposition to make political capital out of those who have set up food banks or use them; we are representing our constituents. In my constituency, there has been an exponential growth in the use of food banks since 2010, and I and other Opposition Members are giving voice to those constituents. It is disgraceful for the hon. Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (James Morris) to suggest that we are trying to make political capital out of this.
	I listened carefully to the Minister earlier, but what we heard from her was a striking combination of denial and complacency. Both the tone and the substance of what she said today failed to meet the scale of the challenge that communities up and down the country face.

Esther McVey: indicated dissent.

Stephen Twigg: It is simply not acceptable for the hon. Lady to sit in her place, shaking her head, when she knows the damage that this is causing to communities up and down this country.

Diane Abbott: Does my hon. Friend agree that if Government Members were genuinely appreciative of the work that food banks did, they would not have turned down £2.5 billion of EU funding to subsidise food banks?

Stephen Twigg: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw our attention to that.
	I would like to draw attention to some of the fantastic things happening in Liverpool to address the crisis of food poverty. My right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy) said earlier that food banks demonstrate both the good and the bad in our modern society. I want to thank all the volunteers who have made a success of food banks in my constituency, and I refer specifically to the North Liverpool food bank, which has 90 volunteers who see about 150 people a week. It opened two years ago in November 2011, and now has eight separate distribution centres in north Liverpool, including in my constituency, in Croxteth and Norris Green. Norris Green is the council ward in Liverpool that has the largest number of households directly affected by the bedroom tax—more than 1,000 households in that single ward—which the food bank tells me is one reason for the increased uptake.
	Another food bank was set up by Labour councillors in the Dovecot area of my constituency, providing crucial support. There is also the Next Steps project, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) referred, which was set up by Councillor Peter Mitchell, one of my constituents. Next Steps provides both food banks and support for people to get back into work. Peter told me earlier today of a wonderful example of a 58-year-old man who used the programme to find a job after a long period of unemployment. He was so happy at the support he had received that he burst into tears when he got that news. In December alone, the food bank will feed 1,000 people and expects to have fed 7,000 people this year.
	Finally, let me refer to a brilliant initiative by Joe Anderson, the mayor of Liverpool. He set up, with Tesco, the mayor’s Hope fund, which is to launch an innovative project to aid the relief of poverty in Liverpool. Anyone shopping in Tesco can make a donation to support the running of the food banks across Liverpool. That is a practical example of a Labour local government leader working with the private sector to deliver and support food banks. I finish by appealing to whichever Minister we are to hear from at the end of the debate to listen to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) said when the debate opened.

Julie Hilling: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is an absolute disgrace that we have to have food banks and the initiatives that he describes in the sixth richest country in the world?

Stephen Twigg: Absolutely. Those among my constituents who do not have to use the food banks look in disbelief when they learn about the scale of the increase in their use over recent years, so I absolutely concur with my hon. Friend. I appeal to the Government to publish the DEFRA report and to do what my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead said the Government should do, which is to have a proper inquiry into the causes of the growth of food banks, so that in future we see not further exponential growth, as we have seen over the last three and a half years, but a decline in the use of food banks, which is surely something that we could all support.

Robert Syms: Poole food bank does a valuable job, supported by a wide range of people, largely from the churches, but including people across the political spectrum. They are all dealing with what must be a very difficult personal crisis for many when they cannot put food on the table. As a parent, one cannot conceive what it must be like to worry about what can be provided for children in an evening meal. In some respects, food banks provide a perfect example of the third sector at work, doing what it can to plug a gap at a particularly difficult time.
	When all this started, I was sitting on the other side of the Chamber, watching the Budgets and the economic management of the country. At that time I was told that boom and bust had been abolished, yet we had one of the biggest busts ever—nearly 7% of GDP. However we look at it, if GDP falls by as much as that, living standards will take a hit.
	Let me make an important point. It could have been a lot worse if people in work had gone for high pay increases to compensate for high bills, but they did not; they priced themselves into jobs. It could have been worse if people had been irresponsible, but they have not been irresponsible. Given the scale of the bust, it is a miracle that only 7.4% of people in the country are unemployed. The figures in Germany and Holland are lower, but, among European countries, Britain is not doing too badly.

Guy Opperman: Does my hon. Friend agree that, while we should all support churches, charities and organisations such as the West Northumberland food bank in my constituency, we should praise the Salvation Army in particular, because it has been providing food assistance for generations?

Robert Syms: That is a very good point.
	We all know that many people in work, as well as those who are out of work, have experienced a big drop in their living standards, and we know that that is because of the economic crisis, but the good news is that there are still a great many people in work and we have a growing economy. It is inevitable that living standards will start to recover as incomes rise, the market recovers and we start to export more.

Alison McGovern: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman’s description of the macro-economic picture is not as connected to the micro-economic picture as he may assume. According to volunteers at the food bank in my constituency, they have been told that the need for food banks has been caused by the move from benefits to work. People’s weekly benefits stop and their pay cheques come at the end of the month, which is too far away. I fear that the recovery will not reach all parts of the economy unless we make it do so. Can he tell us what we can do to ensure that that happens?

Robert Syms: One of our purposes in introducing universal credit is to make the transition from unemployment to work much easier. The scheme is complicated—we all know that—but I think that it is a worthwhile venture, because anything making employment easier must be a good thing.

Andrew Selous: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Robert Syms: I will not, because my time is limited. I have already taken two interventions.
	I am sure that, as the economy recovers, living standards will recover as well, but there is a short-term problem and a long-term problem. The short-term problem is the need for us to recover from the recession, which, as we all know, will take several years. The long-term problem is that, while those in the western world who have benefited from globalisation—particularly people at the higher income scale working in, for instance, financial services—can secure large rewards, many people in ordinary jobs have not managed to increase their living standards. That is a feature of the United States economy and it may be a feature of ours, which is why the Government are interested in apprenticeships and are trying to make our education system far more robust and resilient.
	Statistics issued by the OECD the other day demonstrated the importance of ensuring that people are proficient in English and maths and that we have a skilled work force, because that enables those people to generate income and higher living standards. I think that the Government have the right instincts and the right answers, but the fact is that it will take a long time to sort the problem out.

Steven Baker: Given that the money supply was allowed to triple during the 13 years when Labour was in power, it should not surprise us if those nearest to the source of the new money got rich while everyone else went backwards.

Robert Syms: There is an argument to be had about the impact of that. Certainly it helped people with assets rather than those without assets. Nevertheless, I think that progress is being made, and that this morning’s unemployment figures represent a good staging post.
	We need to do much more to educate and skill our work force so that we can compete in the global race and improve everyone’s living standards. All the statistics show that some of the more equal societies in Scandinavia are happier societies. What any Government must do in this country is ensure that, as the economy recovers, all sections of the community can earn a living, and can enjoy rising living standards.

Anne Begg: At the moment, Aberdeen is doing well. Despite the recession, the economy there is booming. There is so much activity in the North sea oil and gas sector that we are presently experiencing a labour shortage, and today’s unemployment figure in my constituency is down to 1.5 %, which comes pretty close to full employment. In spite of all that, something else is booming: it is the use of food banks.
	The Secretary of State said this morning that the rise in the use of food banks was a result of decent people wanting to help those who found themselves in temporary difficulty, but I do not think that that is the case. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field), I think that there is something fundamental going on.

Debbie Abrahams: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Anne Begg: I give way to my colleague on the Select Committee.

Debbie Abrahams: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a real worry that the demand for food banks seems to be related to the targets relating to social security sanctions? That is certainly the experience in my food bank in Oldham. One of my constituents has been waiting for an appeal against a sanction for four months without any money. For him, the food bank has been a lifeline.

Anne Begg: My hon. Friend, like me, has been lobbied by a number of organisations saying that failures in the benefit system are causing much of the increase in food bank use.
	If the use of food banks were just a passing phase born out of the global banking crisis and the recent years of austerity, we would not be seeing their growth in places such as Aberdeen. If their use is temporary, why is it still growing when the Government say that the economy is picking up? If their use is nothing new, why are more families depending on food parcels than at any time in history?

Derek Twigg: rose—

Eilidh Whiteford: rose—

Anne Begg: I might give way later, if I get through my speech quickly.
	The number of organisations operating food banks is growing, as is the number of food parcels that are distributed each week. Before 2010, there were some people who required food parcels but their numbers were tiny and the food parcels were a stopgap measure to get them over an immediate crisis. However, in the first six months of this financial year, 27 tonnes of food were distributed across Aberdeen by just four of the organisations operating food banks. That figure does not include the food distributed by the Trussell Trust. Something must have changed between the financial crash and today. One thing that has changed is the Government. Another thing is the Government’s social security reforms. The attitude of the Government towards
	those on welfare has changed, too. So even in relatively affluent areas such as Aberdeen, families are depending on food parcels to eat.
	Many organisations point to failures in the benefits system as the primary cause of the increase in the use of food banks. Oxfam and Church Action on Poverty thought the situation serious enough to encourage their supporters to lobby their MPs and ask them to lobby the Work and Pensions Committee to look into the link between the increase in the use of food banks and the increase in the use of sanctions, as well as the increase in long delays and mistakes in benefit payments by Jobcentre Plus. A large number of MPs on both sides of the House—reflected by the large number in attendance here today—passed on their constituents’ concerns to us on the Committee.
	The belief that much of the problem is caused by errors in benefit payments is shared by Citizens Advice Scotland, which reports that 73% of the people using food banks cite problems with their welfare payments, that 30% are experiencing delays in getting the payment to which they are entitled, and that 22% are the subject of jobseeker’s allowance sanctions. However, people who have been sanctioned make up less than a quarter of those who are using food banks. All too commonly, people are using them because they have fallen on hard times through no fault of their own. People are still falling ill and losing their jobs as a result, only to face a long delay in getting any benefit. Those delays have got worse in recent years. It also seems to be taking longer and longer to get benefits reinstated once they have been stopped, even by accident. Cuts are also being made to the benefits that people get, including the most pernicious of all—the bedroom tax—and this is all before the largest change of all, universal credit, has been introduced. So things could get worse.
	We should be breaking dependency, not making it worse. The Government need to recognise that the increase in the use of food banks is no accident, that it is not just a result of the economic downturn, and that it is not happening just because the food banks are there. It is a result of the policies being actively pursed by the Government. The use of food banks will not drop until the Government realise that and do something to ensure that those who have fallen on hard times are able to feed themselves, rather than having to rely on charity.

John Glen: It is a privilege to contribute to this debate, and a privilege and honour to represent the headquarters of the Trussell Trust in Salisbury. The trust’s food banks were established in my constituency more than 15 years ago. This started in 2000, when the trust was working in Bulgaria, looking after 60 street children who were sleeping at railway stations there. The founder of the charity received a call from a desperate mother in Salisbury who said, “My children are going to be hungry tonight. What are you going to do about it?” That happened in 2000, and in 2004 two food banks were set up. The people of Salisbury support the trust’s food bank very generously all the year round. Yes, there are people in Salisbury, which has 1.6% unemployment, who use food banks. I want to pay
	tribute to the individuals I have got to know over the past three and half years from Salisbury who lead the work of the Trussell Trust.

Robert Halfon: My hon. Friend speaks powerfully. The spirit that he mentions in relation to the food bank set up by the Trussell Trust has extended to Harlow with its food bank, which was originally set up by the Michael Roberts Charitable Trust but is linked to the Trussell Trust. An extraordinary amount of work is done there, and it has become a very important part of our community. Will my hon. Friend celebrate that? Does he agree that we should support that and not try to use it as a political football?

John Glen: I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention. Of course, we all support the work of the food banks and the individuals who work in them. I wish to finish my tribute to Chris Mould, David McAuley, Molly Hudson and Mark Elling. I have got to know them, and their responsibility has been to roll out the growth of food banks. That may be uncomfortable for some Government Members, as might its implications and the way the tone of the debate has taken an unfortunate turn this afternoon. We have to acknowledge the growth in food banks. In 2005-06, there were fewer than 3,000 users, but that had risen to 40,000 by 2009-10. I accept that we have seen a similar scale of use. The question is: why and what are we going to do about it? [Interruption] We are talking about a factor of 10, to about half a million users at the moment. I am not trying to deny the scale of food bank use. If Labour Members would stop trying to make political points, that would be helpful.
	The important issue is getting to the bottom of why so many people are using food banks. The Trussell Trust says that this is about not only homelessness, benefit delay, low income and changes to benefits, but domestic violence, sickness, refused short-term benefit advances, debt and unemployment.

Pauline Latham: A constituent of mine has had to go to our Trussell Trust because she was a victim of domestic violence. She was separated, had nowhere to go and her husband was not prepared to fund anything. I pay tribute, as my hon. Friend has been doing, to the trust. Hope for Belper and the Belper News, our local paper, have been supporting it to increase the amount of food given by volunteers to the Trussell Trust in Belper and thus spread the amount of food it can give out to people requiring it.

John Glen: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention, which speaks for itself. On the deeper causes, it is not a question of isolating one particular change. I recognise that the Trussell Trust has acknowledged from the data it has collected that the benefit changes have presented significant challenges. But what I find lacking in this debate is a serious estimation of what alternative measures could be put in place; all I have heard is, “Remove the sanctions regime. Give more money.” Where is that money going to come from? How will the incentive effect—

Jim Shannon: rose—

Angus MacNeil: rose—

John Glen: I will carry on. How will the incentive effect of the benefit changes that the Government so desperately want to bring in have a chance of success if we do not make those changes? Some of the benefit changes have taken a long time to come through, and we need to let them take effect so that we can deliver the deeper change that needs to occur. People are motivated to go to the Trussell Trust and other food banks across the country for a whole number of reasons. They may find themselves in chaotic situations; they could be in debt and have no financial management skills to know how to prioritise their spending. I am not saying that that is true in every case, but we must be honest about the breadth of the problems faced by the individuals who use the food banks. We must come up with a solution that addresses all the issues. We should not tritely simplify the matter and say, “It is all about the benefit changes and the Government must do something, but by the way I will not specify what we would do as an alternative, how much it would cost and how we would pay for it and in what time scale.” Unless alternative policies are advanced, the things that some Members are saying ring very shallow for everyone involved in food banks.
	It is regrettable that the relationship between the Trussell Trust and the DWP has broken down. I hope that a dialogue can reopen and we can see some progress. I do not believe that any Member in this House is happy to see people in their constituency going hungry, but we should be honest and holistic in our view of what needs to be done to sort it out.

Roger Godsiff: I was one of the lucky generation who was brought up in a country with a social market economy that was run by Governments—both Labour and Conservative—who believed that the state had a duty to provide a safety net for their citizens and should not abandon them to the instabilities of unregulated markets.
	There was a post-war consensus of politicians, including many one nation Conservatives—I am talking about people such as Macmillan, Butler and Macleod—who rejected what Prime Minister Ted Heath called the “unacceptable face of capitalism”. Images of mass unemployment and soup kitchens—the repercussions of the 1929 stock market crash—were to be banished for ever. I never believed for one moment that 50 years later, I would be a Member of this House, living in a country with the seventh largest economy in the world, and discussing why 41,000 people in the west midlands and countless others throughout the country are having to rely on modern-day soup kitchens—food banks—to feed themselves and their families.

Angus MacNeil: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to support his point. He is probably aware that the gap between the richest 1% in the United States of America and the rest of the country is now the largest since the 1920s, the very decade he mentioned. The incomes of the top 1% have gone up by 20%, while the incomes of the remaining 99% have gone up by only 1%. Those tectonic plates are changing.

Roger Godsiff: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments, and I am aware of those facts.
	In my constituency, the Sparkhill food bank feeds hundreds of people every week. I want to share with the House the comments of somebody who has used that food bank. She is a young lady who lives in the Moseley area of my constituency. She says:
	“This time last year I was working full time in a well-paid job but lost my job. I found temporary work that ended in February this year. I also suffered bereavements and the breakdown of my long term relationship and ended up in receipt of benefits. I got into debt with all my utility bills and most of my JSA was used to pay npower and Severn Trent Water.”

Derek Twigg: I have been told by the food banks in Widnes and Runcorn in my constituency that they are seeing an increasing number of people without gas or electricity, which means that the food they can supply is inappropriate. They are now having to consider what type of food they provide. It is not a matter of what is donated but of what people can use.

Roger Godsiff: I agree exactly with what my hon. Friend says.
	My constituent goes on to say:
	“At my lowest I was living off £5 per fortnight…I eventually sought help and was referred to fantastic local charities who helped me deal with my debts and in turn referred me to Sparkhill Foodbank. I will never forget going to the foodbank, it was a humbling experience and I spent 40 minutes crying as I was so ashamed but the workers at the foodbank were fantastic and put me at ease whilst assuring me that my circumstances were not my fault and in no way a reflection of me as a human being.”
	She then says:
	“Luckily my circumstances are going to change for the better very soon as I have recently found a job…but I will never forget the kindness of strangers who helped me fill my belly in England in 2013.”
	The Government ought to be ashamed of presiding over a situation in which such people must go through what that young lady, who is not feckless or a shirker, has had to experience. At the end of the day, lives will be scarred by the humiliation of forcing people into food banks—not just the lives of those individuals, but the lives of their children, too. Whatever the Government say, their MPs should be ashamed of that.

Neil Carmichael: It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate on an important subject. I pay tribute to my Stroud food bank, which is an excellent example of exactly what should be delivered for those who are desperately in need. It is a fantastic organisation that demonstrates precisely what we need to do. It is operating in difficult circumstances and has moved from premises with a difficult landlord in London road to some elsewhere, with a new landlord. It will launch itself yet again as an exemplar of what is needed.
	We need to ensure that people have the opportunity to have a fulfilled life, which comes through work and by contributing themselves.

Albert Owen: The hon. Gentleman represents a region that contains many rural areas. Will he join me in paying tribute to the special work done by the independent trusts that help to run food banks? Food and fuel poverty are a lot higher in rural areas, which makes their job even more difficult.

Neil Carmichael: Absolutely. Fuel poverty is an issue, and I fully accept that, but I think the greatest issue is the need for people to recognise that there are opportunities in the work force—opportunities to seek employment and opportunities to fulfil their lives. That is where we need to go.

Lilian Greenwood: Of course, finding a job should be the way out of poverty. Is that not why it is so shocking that the majority of working-age people living below the poverty line are now in working households and that two thirds of all children living in poverty are living in working families? What should the hon. Gentleman’s Government be doing about that?

Neil Carmichael: The Government are ensuring that more people are in work and we have discovered today just how that policy is working. The opportunity we must give all people, including young people, is the ability to engage in a working life.

Sarah Newton: My hon. Friend is very generous in giving way. Is there not quite a lot that we can do as MPs? My volunteer team works alongside the food bank volunteer team to ensure that food bank clients get all the help that is available to get them and their families out of poverty and to improve their lives.

Neil Carmichael: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. It is about a holistic approach to helping people. I recognise that certain individuals get into situations in which they need emergency help, and I am grateful to Stroud’s food bank for providing it, but I also think that it is important to ensure that they are pointed in the right direction so that they make decisions that benefit them and their families overall, because that is what matters to them. That is the key issue.
	I will finish with this observation: it is critical that we recognise the economic value of supporting people into work.

Rachel Reeves: Food banks have become the shameful symbol of Britain under a Tory Government. They have turned us into a country in which, despite being one of the richest in the world, a rapidly rising number of British people, many of them in work, are being forced to turn to charity to feed themselves and their families. But this Government have the affront—we heard it from the Minister—to say that all is well, when for most people things are getting harder, not easier. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) said, the Government just will not admit that they are part of the problem. Ministers are sitting on the independent report that they commissioned, presumably because they are ashamed and embarrassed about what it tells them.
	The Trussell Trust states that one in three of those fed by food banks are children, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) noted. Many are disabled, including those hit by the cruel, callous and unworkable bedroom tax, which my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) spoke about. Many are in work but earning less than the living wage. Indeed, the majority of people in
	poverty today are in work, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy) and my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg) mentioned.

Eilidh Whiteford: Is the hon. Lady aware that Citizens Advice Scotland published research earlier this week suggesting that the main drivers for the increased use of food banks relate to the benefits system, particularly the increasing use of sanctions and delays and administrative errors?

Rachel Reeves: Sanctions, delays and the bedroom tax are all contributing to the increase in the number of people having to turn to food banks. Today we heard the powerful human stories behind the statistics.

Stephen Doughty: I have compared the use of food banks in my constituency in the festive period over the past two years. In Cardiff the number has doubled since last year, and Penarth has seen an eightfold increase. Is not the real tragedy that this is also a Christmas crisis for food banks?

Rachel Reeves: Yes, and although my hon. Friend refers to the festive period, for many it will not be festive at all.
	A fortnight ago a young women with an 18-month-old daughter came to see me in my constituency. She had left her ex-husband to escape domestic violence but was worried sick because the benefits office had cut off her benefits when her ex-husband falsely claimed to have custody of her child. She has been waiting for weeks without any support while it fails to rectify the mistake. Without the food banks in my constituency, run by St George’s Crypt, St Bartholomew’s church in Armley and the Trussell Trust, that women and her daughter would have gone without food. She has been badly let down by this Government and by their delays and sanctions.

Lyn Brown: The food banks in my constituency, which currently number at least six, tell me that people go without food for three months before turning up to ask for help. Is that not an indictment of the Conservative party?

Rachel Reeves: That is a really important point, but some Government Members and Ministers have suggested that people go to food banks because the food is free. The welfare reform Minister, Lord Freud, says that there is an almost infinite demand for that but, as my hon. Friend points out, people have real pride and are ashamed to go to food banks. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) said, those are sad stories and real lives.

Paul Maynard: First, I would like a Government inquiry into food poverty. Secondly, can the hon. Lady tell me whether she believes that unmet need for emergency food relief is currently increasing or decreasing?

Rachel Reeves: The number of people going to food banks is increasing. The demand is there because they are not getting the support they need from the welfare state. The Red Cross, FoodCycle and the Trussell Trust
	are all saying the same. It would be useful if the Government were to publish the report that they commissioned on the growing use of food banks.
	What is the Government’s response to this crisis? The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions—it is nice to see him here—said on the radio this morning:
	“There has been a growth in food banks, as they grow people attend them.”
	In the world of the Secretary of State, the rise in food bank use to half a million people reflects an increase in supply, even though people need to be referred to a food bank—they cannot just turn up. The logic of this Government is like blaming the number of house fires on the number of fire engines. I say shame on the Secretary of State and shame on this Government. We have to ask how many children will have to go hungry this Christmas before the Government take action—before the Secretaries of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and for Work and Pensions acknowledge that there is a problem and then finally do something about it.
	The charities, churches, community groups and volunteers who run the food banks show us Britain at its best—a country of generosity and solidarity, of one nation where people pull together to do what they can for the least fortunate among us. We should, and we do, applaud them, as many hon. Members have said, particularly my hon. Friends the Members for Copeland (Mr Reed) and for Newport East (Jessica Morden), and, most recently, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr Godsiff), who spoke about the kindness of strangers. When the Prime Minister promised us the big society, is this really what he had in mind—homelessness rising, a boom in payday lending, more and more lives scarred by long-term unemployment, and half a million people relying on food banks to feed themselves and their families?
	It is downright Dickensian, a tale of two nations: tax cuts for the rich and food banks for the poor. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) said, as we in this Chamber look forward to Christmas, we must spare a thought for those who are not going to have any sort of Christmas at all.

Ann McKechin: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a basic human right that people should have sufficient food that they do not need to go hungry, and that in this country they should not have to rely on charity?

Rachel Reeves: My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. While we all applaud and thank the food banks, the volunteers and the people who donate food, that is not how our basic needs should be met. The basic need for food should be met through wages and a social safety net when it is needed. The basic need for housing should be met by our wages or by a social safety net when it is needed. The basic need to be able to heat one’s home and turn on the lights should be met by having a decent wage or a social safety net when it is needed.

William Bain: Has my hon. Friend seen, as I have, the study by the Children’s Society showing that under this Government the real
	value of the adult national minimum wage is 50p an hour less than it was when Labour was in office? Is this low pay crisis not one of the key drivers of the explosion in the use of food banks?

Rachel Reeves: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. The national minimum wage was one of the proudest achievements of the previous Labour Government. It lifted millions of people out of poverty pay, the majority of them women, and employment increased when Conservative Members said that unemployment would increase as a result. We also know today that the real value of the national minimum wage has not kept pace with average earnings or with the rising costs of energy, food prices and everything else, and so people who are in work are increasingly having to turn to food banks to be able to make ends meet.
	Although we welcome today’s unemployment numbers, we know that a record number of people are working part time who want to work full time, and that for 41 of the 42 months that this Prime Minister has been in office, prices have risen at a faster rate than earnings. For all those reasons, my hon. Friend is right to point to the problems with the minimum wage, which has not kept pace with the rising cost of living and is not even being enforced. With more than 5 million people being paid less than a living wage, we know that we need to redouble our efforts to ensure that more people can support themselves and their families, rather than having to turn to food aid.
	Seventy years ago, William Beveridge spoke of the five giants that he said a civilised country must overcome: squalor, ignorance, want, idleness and disease. Under this Tory-led Government, those giants are rearing their ugly heads again. We need a Labour Government to slay them.

Nick Hurd: The hon. Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) talked about sad stories from real lives and she was right to do so. That is why the House is so packed—because of the concern of Members on both sides about what is going on.
	A number of contributors have regretted the tone in which the debate has been conducted and they have a point, so let me start, as the Minister for Civil Society, by joining the many colleagues on both sides of the House, but particularly my hon. Friends the Members for Gloucester (Richard Graham) and for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (James Morris), the hon. Members for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams) and for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg), my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr Godsiff) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael), who went out of their way to thank the people who set up food banks and who volunteer at and donate to them in their constituencies.

Simon Danczuk: Will the Minister give way?

Nick Hurd: I will not give way at the moment.
	Frankly, there has been an enormously impressive human, civil society response to need. That need is not new and perhaps it has been under-recognised by Governments of all colours, but the response is entirely resonant with the very proud traditions of this country’s voluntary sector and churches. It is entirely right that we should start our response by congratulating them.

Adam Holloway: Some years ago I spent five months living homeless in London among the dispossessed and the mentally ill. [Interruption.] It was for a television programme; Opposition Members should try it. Does the Minister agree that food banks can be enormously helpful for people with very chaotic lifestyles?

Nick Hurd: Food banks are enormously helpful. It was not entirely clear from the debate whether the Labour party is for or against them, which is why I want to place on record the Government’s recognition of the enormously valuable work they do.
	It was right that my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) had the opportunity to place on record his admiration for the work of the Trussell Trust, which was founded in his constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker) spoke very powerfully of his own family’s experience and mentioned the community store. I pay tribute to FareShare, a national charity that feeds more than 51,000 every day through a unique and amazing partnership with the food industry, which has not been recognised in this debate. The strides made by Sainsbury’s, Tesco, Asda and other big retail partners and organisations such as Nestlé and Gerber make what FareShare do possible, and they should be congratulated.
	I should also say that the Government are actively supporting these organisations.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. It is quite clear that the Minister is not giving way at the moment.

Nick Hurd: Support is being provided through the Cabinet Office. I am extremely proud that through our social action fund we have granted £1.7 million to Tearfund, which runs programmes in partnership with the Cinnamon Network that aim to tackle a variety of local issues such as food banks and food poverty. I am proud to say that 81 Trussell Trust-run food bank franchises benefited from that funding. More funding is being made available and more franchises are applying for it. This Government are very proud to place on record our acknowledgement of and congratulations to food banks. We have an active programme to support them

Graham Stuart: Will the Minister join me in congratulating those who recently helped set up a food bank in Beverley, those who have run the Holderness food bank from Hornsea—the church groups and others—for the last two years, and also the Real Aid children’s charity in Tickton outside Beverley which does so much to help those in crisis? There will always be people in crisis; we need to make sure we have in place the measures to support them.

Nick Hurd: I entirely agree, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on the tone he has set, which is at odds with the tone used by those on the Labour Front Bench.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Nick Hurd: I am not going to give way because I want to address this point and we are running out of time. Many Members who contributed to the debate complained about the tone, which was set by the Labour Front-Bench team, who came here to play the blame game, which turns the public off. They are in total denial about the past and the actions of the last Government that precipitated the economic crisis that underpins the demand and the need. They came here almost pretending that there was some golden age before 2010 when the social system worked perfectly, the economy worked perfectly and the big state in all its glory was there to help everyone in need, which is absolute rubbish.

Simon Danczuk: Does the Minister accept that scrapping the national social fund has made it more difficult for people to get crisis loans, which has pushed people towards food banks? [Interruption.]

Nick Hurd: The social fund is being administered by local authorities, which, as a councillor himself, the hon. Gentleman well knows. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. There are strong feelings on both sides but the Minister must be heard.

Nick Hurd: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that not one penny was cut and the fund has been devolved to local authorities, which is entirely the right thing to do. There was no acknowledgement of the past, however.

Gerald Kaufman: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Hurd is exactly what he is.

Mr Speaker: That is not a point of order, but I am sure the right hon. Gentleman found it humorous.

Nick Hurd: There was no acknowledgement of the past and no real acknowledgement of some of the complexities underlying this situation. The Labour Front-Bench team came here simply to make political capital and I think lost the respect of the House. It would have been nice to hear some acknowledgement from the Opposition Front Benchers or Back Benchers of the improvement in the economy and the fact that we now have more than 30 million people in work—a record number—and of the performance of this Government in a few years to get this economy back on track.

Sheila Gilmore: I thank the Minister for giving way. I think he was somewhat churlish in not acknowledging that many Opposition Members are also extremely grateful to those who work in food banks. When I went to my local church-run food bank, I found that the people there were not political; the one thing they wanted to tell me was how shocked they were that so many of the people coming to them were suffering from sanctions—and sanctions not as a last resort but as a first resort.

Nick Hurd: I agree that these magnificent volunteers are not political, and I therefore warn the Labour party against politicising this issue, because that is the gravest charge against it. I think it has forfeited any respect with regard to the sad stories in real life through the approach it took. We had a Labour Front-Bench spokesman came here to talk about a problem with absolutely no indication of a solution. We have had Labour Members standing up to say the welfare system is the problem, and we have a shadow Front-Bench spokesperson who is on record saying she will be tougher than the Tories on welfare, so what does that actually mean for food banks? Would there be more or fewer of them under her leadership? We have no idea at all.

Stephen Mosley: Was my hon. Friend as disappointed as I was by the Opposition Front-Bench Member, who in a 10-minute speech did not outline one policy that the Opposition would put in place to put this right?

Nick Hurd: I would like to say that I was shocked by that, but not any more.

Rosie Winterton: claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).

Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.
	Question agreed to.
	Main Question accordingly put.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 251, Noes 294.

Question accordingly negatived.

WAVENEY (COASTAL FLOODING)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(John Penrose.)

Peter Aldous: I am pleased to have secured this debate as I believe that the coastal flooding that took place on 5 December should be considered on the Floor of the House. The storm surge has had a devastating impact on many coastal communities, and there is a strong sense in those communities that Parliament has not properly considered what was a narrowly averted national crisis. Many have seen their homes destroyed, while other homes have been seriously damaged and people will not be able to return home for many months. People have lost possessions that were built up over a lifetime, and many small businesses—some of which had difficulty securing full insurance cover—have been seriously hit.
	On small business Saturday when MPs were out promoting small businesses, many firms in coastal communities were busy trying to salvage what was left of their livelihoods. Many of those communities face significant economic challenges, and I am concerned that such events might make it more difficult to attract the inward investment needed to create new jobs.
	Although Waveney and Lowestoft are the focus of my remarks, I am aware that these events affected many communities along the North sea coast and that colleagues will have their own specific concerns, some of which I hope I shall be able to address on their behalf. I am conscious that my colleagues, the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis) and the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), have been particularly active in support of communities affected in their constituencies, but they are unable to participate in this debate due to their ministerial responsibilities.
	Although no one lost their life as a result of the flooding, my constituent Robert Dellow died in the course of his work as a lorry driver as a result of the high winds. I offer my condolences to his family, friends and work colleagues. Although geographically small areas in Lowestoft and Oulton Broad were affected, the impact has been dramatic. Levington Court is a complex that provides housing and care for vulnerable older people. The residents of the 19 flats on the ground floor have been evacuated, their possessions have been destroyed and they will not be able to return to their homes for some months. The Fyffe Centre provides accommodation for the homeless. Twenty-seven people have been flooded out. It will take some months to refurbish and repair the building before they can return. Other residential areas, including St John’s road and Marine parade, have been hard-hit. Many of the homes are in the rental sector, and people have seen all their possessions destroyed.
	Businesses have been hard-hit, including Lings car showroom, the East Coast cinema, Britain’s most easterly cinema, and Buyaparcel. The traders in Bevan Street East, which runs parallel to the street where my office is located, were dealt a particularly savage blow.
	Infrastructure was damaged. The A12 from Ipswich was closed for 36 hours, and both train lines—to Norwich and Ipswich—were out of action. A full service on the latter has resumed only today. There was structural damage to coastal defences, and infrastructure at the port of Lowestoft was damaged. The doctor’s surgery at Marine parade has had to move and will probably not return from its new location.
	To the south, at Kessingland, the flood defences around the Anglian Water pumping station that serves the community have been badly eroded. There is an urgent need to produce a new flood defence scheme. Until two weeks ago, it was envisaged that that would not be necessary for some years.
	The scene is a sad one, but good things come out of adversity. It is important to point out that, owing to the investment in flood defences in the past few years and the way in which coastal flooding is managed, many properties were protected that otherwise would have been flooded. The various statutory authorities, including the Environment Agency, the Met Office, the police and fire services, the Flood Forecasting Centre, Suffolk county council and Waveney district council, were prepared for the event.
	Flood warnings were issued in good time, the evacuation generally went smoothly and rest centres were open several hours before high tide. During the evening and the night, they and voluntary organisations such as St John Ambulance and the churches rose to the challenge, co-ordinated their efforts and worked around the clock to support and assist people. Many gave their time voluntarily without being asked to do so. Special thanks are due to them. Thanks should also go to Radio Suffolk and Radio Norfolk, which ensured that vital information went out throughout the night.
	The clear-up work began the next day and will take several months to complete. Community champions are emerging. People are giving their time, money, goods and services free of charge to those who have been hard-hit. Malcolm Gibbs, a self-employed painter and decorator, is working for free redecorating properties; Danielle Bailey has launched a Facebook appeal for clothes, carpets, furniture and other goods; and customers of the Oddfellows pub have cleared up Pakefield beach.
	It is appropriate to thank the Eastern Daily Press, its editor, Nigel Pickover, its staff and its readers for setting up and giving so generously to the Norfolk and Lowestoft flood appeal, which has raised more than £100,000. The House goes in to recess tomorrow. I wish you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and all colleagues a happy and restful Christmas, but we must not forget that many people, not only in Lowestoft but all along the east coast, will not be as fortunate as ourselves.
	In the Secretary of State’s written ministerial statement of 10 December, he stated:
	“In the next few days, the Government will be discussing with every local authority area affected by the flooding what further help they need to ensure places can quickly get back on their feet.”—[Official Report, 10 December 2013; Vol. 572, c. 26WS.]
	I would welcome an update from the Minister on how those discussions have gone and what further help is being provided. I would also welcome an assurance that all clean-up costs will be recovered.

Martin Vickers: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate and on putting the case for his constituency. Barrow Haven, a village in my constituency, was badly hit. The residents are grateful to North Lincolnshire council for the work it is doing. The council is somewhat reassured about reclaiming money through the Bellwin formula and so on, but a lot of the work is dependent on the Environment Agency. Does my hon. Friend agree that we would like assurance from the Minister that additional funding, if necessary, will be available to the agency?

Peter Aldous: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. It is important that additional funding goes to local authorities for the costs they incur—I will come on to talk about the Bellwin formula—and to the Environment Agency, for capital works. I pay tribute to the EA, in particular, for the advance warning it gave leading up to this tragedy.
	It is important that the Government review the policies and strategies they have in place to deal with such events. Concerns have been expressed to me that they were not devised with serious coastal flooding in mind. The Pitt review, which was set up by the previous Government after the storms that occurred in autumn 2007, appears to have some deficiencies in that it does not address coastal flooding and erosion properly. Its recognition of the need to protect the economy is too limited. Similar criticisms can be made of the new flood and coastal erosion risk management plan that was introduced in 2011. It, too, places insufficient weight on the need to protect the economy or recognise fully the differences between inland flooding, which is temporary, and coastal flooding and erosion, which can be terminal for affected properties and assets.
	I would be grateful if the Minister could advise on whether the Government have reviewed or plan to review Flood Re, the flood insurance scheme, which is being taken forward at present. Does it fully take into account, and provide for, the events that took place on 5 December? If not, will the Government make amendments so that it does?
	The Bellwin scheme is the main vehicle through which the Government will deliver financial support to local communities by reimbursing local authorities for immediate costs incurred in the storm surge. Based on the feedback I have received there is a concern that the scheme, which was originally established in 1983, is no longer fit for purpose. I would be interested to learn what feedback the Government have had in that regard, but I will draw various conclusions to the Minister’s attention.
	As a result of recent changes in the localisation of business rates, any rate relief granted by councils to affected businesses will in part be met by them rather than entirely by the Government, as was the case in the past. The scheme is too time-limited and restrictive. It does not cover the costs incurred in repairing sea defences that have been weakened by the event, and is not generally supportive of capital expenditure, which is necessary to repair sea defences. In Waveney, that is estimated at £120,000, while I am advised that in North Norfolk it could be £1 million.

Therese Coffey: My hon. Friend is my neighbour and we share Waveney district council. We were both astounded by the level of the
	surge and I agree that we need extra capital funding. My understanding is that in Southwold alone an extra £2 million is needed. I join my hon. Friend in praising the Environment Agency—in particular, Dr Charlie Beardall and his team—and the councils for ensuring that people were aware in advance and could prepare as much as possible. They definitely need the resources to fix the problem again.

Peter Aldous: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and neighbour for that intervention, with which I agree wholeheartedly.
	A further problem with the Bellwin scheme is that the two-month limitation that applies to expenditure means that extensive capital works are excluded if they cannot be completed in that time scale, which in the current circumstances could be very difficult to achieve. The costs of employing additional temporary staff or contractors are also not covered.
	In light of those and other concerns, there is a worry that Bellwin on its own will not be able to achieve the Secretary of State’s objective of getting places back on their feet quickly. In the short term, there is a need for communities to look at a variety of measures that manage flood risk. They include the provision of flood boards and valves in air bricks and in WCs, and liaison with the insurance industry to ensure that, where such protection measures are in place, it provides cover on realistic terms. It is also necessary to plan for the future. I believe that owing to rises in sea levels such events will occur with increased frequency, and I am conscious that in Lowestoft there have now been two such events in the past six years.

Andrew Percy: I concur with a lot of what my hon. Friend has said, and I congratulate him on securing the debate. As the Minister knows from our debates on the Water Bill last week, hundreds of properties and many villages in my constituency were flooded. My hon. Friend has talked about the future. Does he agree that we urgently need a review and reassessment of all our flood strategy management plans, including the Humber flood risk management strategy plan, so that we can bring forward the works already identified in such plans as necessary to deal with rising sea levels? We need that to happen quickly and we need the funding in place to support whatever works are necessary.

Peter Aldous: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, and I agree wholeheartedly that we need to address this issue as soon as practicable. One will lead on from the other.
	We have had two such storm surges in the past six years, and arguably in both 2007 and 2013 we escaped by the skin of our teeth. In 2007, the wind dropped in the nick of time, while two weeks ago, we were fortunate that the wind was blowing in a northerly direction and that there was no heavy rainfall, which would have exacerbated the surge up the rivers. It would be foolish to assume that we will be lucky a third time.
	The challenges of rising sea levels and climate change mean that such events will take place with greater frequency. It is important to remember that sea levels along the Suffolk coast have been rising by 2.4 mm per annum since the 1950s. In Lowestoft, research carried
	out by Halcrow and Bam Nuttall concludes that a 1953-type flood, which was previously considered to be a one-in-1,000-year event, could well now take place every 20 years. There is thus a need for new and improved sea defences, and it is important that these be put in place as soon as practicable.
	Preparatory work on a Lowestoft flood defence scheme is nearing completion. It should be submitted to the Government shortly, and I hope it will receive favourable consideration. It is important to the town’s future that work on the scheme starts as soon as practicable. There is the opportunity to attract considerable investment into the town, particularly in the oil and gas and offshore renewables sectors, and the inclusion of this part of Lowestoft in the draft assisted area map will help in this respect. However, businesses will think very carefully before making such commitments unless adequate flood defences are in place.
	I have raised a number of issues, but I return to the most important, which is obtaining an assurance from the Minister that the Government are doing all they can to ensure that local communities affected by the storm surge get back on their feet as quickly as possible. In what is the season of good will, we owe it to those many people whose lives have been turned upside down this Christmas to provide an undertaking that they will not be forgotten.
	On that note, Mr Deputy Speaker, happy Christmas to you, to the staff of the House and to all colleagues on both sides of the House. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

Dan Rogerson: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for calling me to respond to this important debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) not only on securing it, but on how he opened it and the measured way in which he raised issues that are important to his constituents and others across the country who either were affected by the surge or, as he pointed out, escaped being affected this time but are concerned that we prepare for future events.
	The coastal surge that struck the eastern coast of England on the night of 5 and 6 December was a significant flood event. It was the largest surge since 1953, and in several places the water height exceeded that experienced 60 years ago. It caused flooding to about 1,400 properties and some damage to infrastructure. I know all our thoughts are with those affected and whose homes and businesses were damaged during these powerful storms. However, through investment by Government, and improvements to the way we manage this type of flooding, we were able to protect up to 800,000 properties countrywide that might otherwise have been flooded.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney pointed out, there was a multi-agency response to this event, with all relevant authorities pulling together to protect people and their property. I am grateful for the excellent response from our front-line emergency services, including the police, the fire services, the Environment Agency and, of course, local authorities, as well as all the volunteers who assisted. They all worked tirelessly to respond to the surge, both as it happened as well as in the ensuing recovery effort.

Douglas Carswell: In Essex, we all acknowledge how well Tendring district council and Essex police did—they did a fantastic job in organising the evacuation of Brooklands and Jaywick. Thousands of people were moved; it is to the great credit of people in Jaywick and Brooklands that thousands of people were moved with such minimum fuss. Does my hon. Friend accept that absolutely key to the whole process was the fact that the Environment Agency put the information out in the public domain early? By mid-afternoon, it was available through mainstream media and, in particular, social media, which allowed people to take responsibility and act responsibly. Often, they did not need the authorities to do things for them because they were able to make arrangements themselves. That shows a key way to move large numbers of people quickly and safely in future.

Dan Rogerson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. I visited his constituency on the Sunday after the events, as he knows, and I was very impressed with the feedback I received from local residents about how the evacuation had proceeded and how reassuring it was for them, with everything well handled. I spent some time with Dr Charlie Beardall, whom my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney mentioned, and with officials from Tendring council, who talked about not only the response to the events, but how they were engaging with our programme for partnership funding to ensure that further defences in that part of the coast can be brought forward. I shall say more about that.
	As well as the agencies I have mentioned, I would like to praise the work of the Flood Forecasting Centre, run by the Met Office and the Environment Agency. More than 160,000 homes and businesses received a flood warning, as my hon. Friend illustrated from his own constituency, and they received advice in advance to enable them to put the flood plans into action.
	Nationally, the Environment Agency issued 71 severe flood warnings, five of which were for the Waveney district. Emergency service partners were aware of the event 36 hours in advance of the tide, and strategic goal controls were established in Norfolk, Suffolk and Essex on Wednesday 4 December. Those remained in place throughout the event. The combination of accurate forecasting and extensive planning and preparation allowed us to co-ordinate the response to ensure the focus was on protecting communities at risk and the key infrastructure that supports them.
	The extremely severe conditions were caused by a rare combination of factors: very low atmospheric pressure over the North sea, causing the sea level to rise, which, combined with the high astronomic tides and gale force winds, resulted in a tidal surge of unprecedented sea levels on some parts of the coast. The extreme conditions put sea defences to their greatest test in 60 years, with record tidal surge levels experienced at many locations along the entire length of the east coast. In Lowestoft, the record high tide, or the recorded high tide, was the same as in 1953, and over half a metre higher than the more recent surge of November 2007.
	With the changing climate, there is more of a risk of extreme weather events. According to the climate change risk assessment, the probability of coastal flooding is projected to increase as the climate changes. I assure the
	House that the Government, in this and all their policies, take full account of the potential impact of climate change on our flood defence strategy.
	Let me refer to a number of important local aspects that my hon. Friend has raised. Our thoughts are, of course, with the family and friends of Mr Robert Dellow, who tragically lost his life as a result of the high winds. I pay tribute, too, to Malcolm Gibbs, Danielle Bailey and, indeed, the customers of the Oddfellows pub and the Eastern Daily Press for all they did to help the community recover.
	As for the local impact, the latest Environment Agency estimate suggests that 87 properties were flooded in the low-lying centre of the commercial heart of Lowestoft. The area of Oulton broad, which lies at the western end of Lake Lothing in Lowestoft, also suffered a second inundation by flooding from the River Waveney, some two hours after the initial tidal surge. The road crossings at the bascule bridge and Mutford lock crossing were both closed, effectively cutting Lowestoft in half. Flooding also resulted in the closure of the A12 at Blythburgh. Rail services between Lowestoft and Norwich and between Lowestoft and Ipswich were disrupted as a result of flooding at Lowestoft Central station and damage to the signalling network. The Lowestoft to Ipswich line remained closed some 11 days after the tidal surge.
	Further south in the constituency, there was limited flooding at a number of locations in the Blyth estuary. Recent defences protected the vast majority of properties in Southwold. It was confirmed that seven commercial and three residential properties had been flooded in Southwold and the surrounding marshes, while 133 properties in the town had been protected from flooding. My thoughts go out to all who have been affected by the floods: it is especially difficult for them in the run-up to the season that we are about to celebrate. The internationally important designated coastal habitats between Lowestoft and Southwold were all subject to breaching of the fragile sand and shingle barriers that offer them limited protection, but the Environment Agency has inspected the sites and expects the barriers to repair themselves naturally over the next few tides.
	The principal coast protection authority in the Lowestoft area is Waveney district council, while other defences are maintained by Associated British Ports, the harbour authority. The Environment Agency has worked closely with the council’s engineering staff throughout the event and its aftermath. The damage to defences has been assessed and appears to be relatively minor except on Lowestoft south beach, where more detailed engineering assessments are still taking place. Separately, Suffolk county council has been preparing a flood alleviation scheme for sections of the A12 that were flooded at Blythburgh. The scheme is expected to become operational in 2014. There are 550 properties that lie outside Lowestoft in the Waveney valley. The Environment Agency has spent approximately £12 million on strengthening flood defences along the valley over the past 10 years under the Broadland flood alleviation project.
	During the event itself, a number of people were temporarily re-homed, and advice has been offered to businesses and householders. A multi-agency information centre has been established in the worst-affected area. The district council has removed damaged goods and possessions free of charge, and has granted rate and council tax relief to affected properties. The multi-agency
	response to the surge is now focusing on recovery, and the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government has set up a Bellwin scheme to reimburse local authorities for their immediate costs caused by the storm surge. My hon. Friend asked about the configuration of the scheme. As he will appreciate, such matters are for the Department for Communities and Local Government, but his comments are on the record, and I shall ensure that they are conveyed to those at the Department so that they can respond to him.
	The Government have begun the process of discussing with all local authority areas affected by the flooding what further help they need to ensure that they can get back on their feet quickly, and we stand ready to assist where we can do so. Waveney district council has already notified the Department for Communities and Local Government that it has in mind a potential claim under the Bellwin scheme.

Nicholas Dakin: Can the Minister reassure Waveney district council, North Lincolnshire council and other councils that they will not be out of pocket as a result of having supported their communities following this natural disaster?

Dan Rogerson: As has been made clear, measures in the Bellwin formula enable the Government to reimburse councils. As one who represents an area that has been flooded, I have seen how the system operates. For example, there are always different implications for two-tier and single-tier local government areas. The Department for Communities and Local Government takes those issues very seriously in its interaction with councils, and it will be discussing with councils what is necessary in this instance.
	Local resilience forums and the various front-line responders all along the east coast have been planning and preparing for an event such as this for some time. A prime example is the east coast flood framework document that was published in January this year, which sets out local response arrangements. It was prepared by a wide range of local authorities and other front-line responders, including those in the Waveney constituency, working with central Government to ensure alignment with wider national resilience planning. It is testimony to their
	efforts that the impacts, although, as we have heard, devastating for those directly affected, are on a much smaller scale than those of the comparable coastal flooding event in 1953. However, there are always lessons to be learnt from our response to events such as this. I assure the House that the Government will review their approach, and that we will improve our planning and preparedness accordingly.
	Flood management is a top priority for the Government. It has a vital role to play in protecting people and property from the damage caused by flooding and in delivering economic growth and supporting a strong economy. I was particularly impressed, when I visited Clacton, to hear about its plans to use the flood defences to restore the sandy beach, which should also have economic benefits. There is a clear case for investing in flood defences not only because of the economic risks attached to flooding but because of what they can bring to the local economy. That is an excellent project. I know that the situation in Lowestoft is being considered, as my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney has outlined, and I look forward to hearing about the proposals for its flood defences. Commitments have been made by local partners to invest in them, and that will no doubt make the case for investment in the scheme even better.

Therese Coffey: I thank the Minister for his response so far. Will he also lobby the Department for Communities and Local Government on the use of the coastal communities fund, which exists to promote jobs and growth, to see whether funds could be made available to improve flood defences, which could protect existing jobs as well?

Dan Rogerson: My hon. Friend makes a good point about the pots of money that are available for local communities. Sometimes a case can be made for linking them to various projects. I have learned about a case in the past week for investment in economic growth to be joined with work on flood prevention. It is an excellent example—
	House adjourned without Question put (Standing Order No. 9(7)).